1                           

/ 

M 

S      * 

H      * 

Js          2 

t©                pq 

o 

t 

D;        §        1 

1  i  - 

BV  648  .W51  1873 
Witherow,  Thomas,  1824-1890 
Which  is  the  Apostolic 
Church? 


Q 


WHICH    IS 

THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH? 

AN  INQUIKY 


AT  THE  ORACLES  OF  GOD  AS  TO  WHETHER  ANY  EXIST- 
ING FORM  OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT  IS  OF 
DIVINE  RIGHT. 


BY 

THOMAS^iTHEROW, 

PROFESSOR   OP    CHURCH    HISTORY,    LONDONDERRY,    IRELAND. 

EDITED    AND   ANNOTATED 


Rev.  R.  M.  PATTERSON. 


PHILADELPHIA : 

PRESBYTERIAN  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION, 

1334  CHESTNUT  STREET. 


CONTENTS. 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  QUESTION 

PAGE 

5 

Meaning  of  the  word  Church 

19 

Government  of  the  Church 

30 

APOSTOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

42 

The  First  Principle 

.      46 

The  Second  Principle 

.      55 

The  Third  Principle 

62 

The  Fourth  Principle      . 

68 

The  Fifth  Principle 

73 

The  Sixth  Principle 

84 

APPLICATION  OF  THE  TEST 

91 

Prelacy             

93 

Independency  

100 

Presbytery 

109 

The  Result 

117 

PREFATORY  NOTE. 


This  little  book  of  Professor  Witherow,  of 
Londonderry,  is  an  admirably  compact,  clean- 
cut  and  forcible  inquiry  into  the  great  prin- 
ciples and  facts  of  church  government.  It  is 
well  adapted  to  strengthen  the  faith  of  Pres- 
byterians in  their  system,  and  to  convince  can- 
did inquirers  of  its  apostolic  character.  As 
originally  published  in  Ireland,  it  contained 
references  to  the  Presbyterians  of  that  country 
which  would  not  apply  to  American  Presby- 
terians in  general.  Its  descriptions  of  the 
antagonistic  forms  of  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment were  also  somewhat  colored  by  and 
restricted  to  the  British  organizations.  In 
order  to  prepare  this  edition  for  American 
readers  (at  the  request  of  the  Board  of  Pub- 
lication), the  first  cla.cs  of  passages  have  been 
eliminated,  and  the  second  have   been   sup- 


4  PREFATORY    NOTE. 

plemented  by  foot-notes  characterizing  some 
of  the  leading  ecclesiastical  organizations  of 
this  country,  and  showing  the  application  to 
them  of  the  principles  that  are  laid  down  in 
the  text.  These  changes  have  been  mads 
with  the  courteous  consent  of  Professor  With- 
erow.  The  title  of  the  Irish  edition  of  the 
book  was:  "The  Apostolic  Church:  Which 
is  it?"  In  this  edition  a  transposition  of  the 
words  of  that  title  has  been  made,  because 
the  Board  of  Publication  has  already  on  its 
catalogue  a  work  on  the  same  subject,  by  the 
Bev.  Albert  Barnes,  with  the  title,  "The 
Apostolic  Church/' 

We  have  endeavored  not  to  multiply  the 
notes,  but  to  restrict  them  to  the  smallest 
possible  number  and  compass,  so  as  to  keep 

the  book  small  in  size. 

E.  M.  P. 


WHICH  IS 

THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH? 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  QUESTION. 

IT  is  very  common  for  professing  Christians 
to  draw  a  distinction  between  essentials 
and  non-essentials  in  religion,  and  to  infer 
that  if  any  fact  or  doctrine  rightly  belongs 
to  the  latter  class  it  must  be  a  matter  of  very 
little  importance,  and  may  in  practice  be  safely 
set  at  naught.  The  great  bulk  of  men  take 
their  opinions  on  trust;  they  will  not  undergo 
the  toil  of  thinking,  searching  and  reasoning 
about  anything,  and  one  of  the  most  usual 
expedients  adopted  to  save  them  the  trouble 
of  inquiry,  and  to  turn  aside  the  force  of  any 
disagreeable  fact,  is  to  meet  it  by  saying, 
"The  matter  is  not  essential  to  salvation; 
l*  5 


6         WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHUECH  ? 

therefore  we  need  give  ourselves  little  concern 
on  the  subject." 

If  the  distinction  here  specified  is  safe,  the 
inference  drawn  from  it  is  certainly  dangerous. 
To  say  that  because  a  fact  of  divine  revela- 
tion is  not  essential  to  salvation  it  must  of 
necessity  be  unimportant,  and  may  or  may 
not  be  received  by  us,  is  to  assert  a  principle 
the  application  of  which  would  make  havoc 
of  our  Christianity.  For  what  are  truths 
essential  to  salvation  ?  Are  they  not  these  : 
That  there  is  a  God  ;  that  all  men  are  sinners ; 
that  the  Son  of  God  died  upon  the  cross  to 
make  atonement  for  the  guilty;  and  that  who- 
soever believes  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  shall 
be  saved?  There  is  good  reason  for  believing 
that  not  a  few  souls  are  now  in  happiness  who 
in  life  knew  little  more  than  these,  the  first 
principles  of  the  oracles  of  God — the  very 
alphabet  of  the  Christian  system  ;  and  if  so, 
no  other  divine  truths  can  be  counted  abso- 
lutely essential  to  salvation.  But  if  all  the 
other  truths  of  revelation  are  unimportant 
because  they  happen  to  be  non-essentials,  it 
follows  that  the  word  of  God  itself  is  in  the 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION.  7 

main  unimportant;  for  by  far  the  greatest 
portion  of  it  is  occupied  with  matters  the 
knowledge  of  which,  in  the  case  supposed,  is 
not  absolutely  indispensable  to  the  everlasting 
happiness  of  men.  Nor  does  it  alter  the  case 
if  we  regard  the  number  of  fundamental 
truths  to  be  much  greater.  Let  a  man  once 
persuade  himself  that  importance  attaches 
only  to  what  he  is  pleased  to  call  essentials, 
whatever  their  number,  and  he  will,  no  doubt, 
shorten  his  creed  and  cut  away  the  foundation 
of  many  controversies,  but  he  will  practically 
set  aside  all  except  a  very  small  part  of  the 
Scriptures.  If  such  a  principle  does  not  mu- 
tilate the  Bible,  it  stigmatizes  much  of  it  as 
trivial.  Revelation  is  all  gold  for  precious- 
ness  and  purity,  but  the  very  touch  of  such  a 
principle  would  transmute  the  most  of  it  into 
dross. 

Though  every  statement  in  the  Scriptures 
cannot  be  regarded  as  absolutely  essential  to 
salvation,  yet  everything  there  is  essential  to 
some  other  wise  and  important  end,  else  it 
would  not  find  a  place  in  the  good  word  of 
God.      Human  wisdom  may  be  baffled  in  at- 


8         WHICH    IS    THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH? 

tempting  to  specify  the  design  of  every  truth 
that  forms  a  component  part  of  divine  revela- 
tion, but  eternity  will  show  us  that  no  por- 
tion of  it  is  useless.  All  Scripture  is  profit- 
able. A  fact  written  therein  may  not  be 
essential  to  human  salvation,  and  yet  it  may 
be  highly  conducive  to  some  other  great  and 
gracious  purpose  in  the  economy  of  God — it 
may  be  necessary  for  our  personal  comfort,  for 
our  guidance  in  life  or  for  our  growth  in  holi- 
ness, and  most  certainly  it  is  essential  to  the 
completeness  of  the  system  of  divine  truth. 
The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect.  Strike  out 
of  the  Bible  the  truth  that  seems  the  most  in- 
significant of  all,  and  the  law  of  the  Lord 
would  not  be  perfect  any  more.  In  architec- 
ture, the  pinning  that  fills  a  crevice  in  the  wall 
occupies  a  subordinate  position,  in  comparison 
with  the  quoin ;  but  the  builder  lets  us  know 
that  the  one  has  an  important  purpose  to 
serve  as  well  as  the  other,  and  does  its  part  to 
promote  the  stability  and  completeness  of  the 
house.  In  shipbuilding,  the  screws  and  bolts 
that  gird  the  ship  together  are  insignificant,  as 
compared  with  the  beams  of  oak  and  masts  of 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION.  9 

pine,  but  they  contribute  their  full  share  to 
the  safety  of  the  vessel  and  the  security  of  the 
passenger.  So  in  the  Christian  system  every 
fact,  great  or  small,  that  God  has  been  pleased 
to  insert  in  the  Bible,  is,  by  its  very  position, 
invested  with  importance,  answers  its  end, 
and,  though  perhaps  justly  considered  as  non- 
essential to  salvation,  does  not  deserve  to  be 
accounted  as  worthless. 

Every  divine  truth  is  important,  though  it 
may  be  that  all  divine  truths  are  not  of  equal 
importance.  The  simplest  statement  of  the 
Bible  is  a  matter  of  more  concern  to  an  im- 
mortal being  than  the  most  sublime  sentiment 
of  mere  human  genius.  The  one  carries  with 
it  what  the  other  cannot  show — the  stamp  of 
the  approval  of  God.  The  one  comes  to  us 
from  heaven;  the  other  savors  of  the  earth. 
The  one  has  for  us  a  special  interest,  as  form- 
ing a  constituent  portion  of  that  word  which 
is  a  message  from  God  to  each  individual 
man ;  the  other  is  the  production  of  a  mind 
merely  human,  to  which  we  and  all  our  in- 
terests were  alike  unknown.  Any  truth  merely 
human  should  weigh  with  us  light  as  a  feather 


10      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH? 

in  comparison  with  the  most  insignificant  of 
the  truths  of  God.  The  faith  of  a  Christian 
should  strive  to  reach  and  grasp  everything 
that  God  has  honored  with  a  place  in  that 
word  the  design  of  which  is  to  be  a  light  to 
our  feet  as  we  thread  our  way  through  this 
dark  world.  Besides,  this,  unlike  every  other 
book,  is  not  doomed  to  perish.  Heaven  and 
earth  may  pass  away,  but  the  words  of  Christ 
shall  not  pass  away.  The  seal  of  eternity  is 
stamped  on  every  verse  of  the  Bible.  This 
fact  is  enough  of  itself  to  make  every  line  of 
it  important. 

With  these  observations  we  deem  it  right 
to  introduce  our  exposition  of  ecclesiastical 
polity.  Few  would  go  so  far  as  to  assert 
that  correct  views  on  church  government  are 
essential  to  salvation,  and  yet  it  is  a  subject 
whose  importance  it  were  folly  to  attempt  to 
depreciate.  The  Holy  Spirit,  speaking  in  the 
Scriptures,  treats  of  this  theme.  The  Chris- 
tian world  has  been  divided  in  opinion  about 
it  ever  since  the  Reformation.  We  cannot 
attach  ourselves  to  any  denomination  of  Chris- 
tians without  giving  our  influence  either  to 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION.  11 

truth  or  error  on  this  very  point;  and  the, 
views  we  adopt  upon  this  subject  go  far  to 
color  our  opinions  on  matters  of  Christian 
faith  and  practice.  With  such  facts  before 
us,  though  we  may  not  regard  the  polity  of 
the  New  Testament  Church  as  essential  to 
human  salvation,  we  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to 
undervalue  its  importance. 

The  various  forms  of  Church  government 
that  we  find  existing  at  present  in  the  Chris- 
tian world  may  be  classed  under  some  one  or 
other  of  these  heads :  Peel ac y,  Independ- 
ency and  Presbytery.  We  do  not  em- 
ploy these  terms  in  an  offensive  sense,  but  as 
being  the  best  calculated  to  denote  their  re- 
spective systems.  Prelacy  is  that  form  of 
Church  government  which  is  administered 
by  archbishops,  bishops,  deans,  archdeacons 
and  other  ecclesiastical  office-bearers,  depend- 
ing on  their  hierarchy,  and  is  such  as  we  see 
exemplified  in  the  Greek  Church,  the  Church 
of  Rome  and  the  Church  of  England.*     In- 

*  A  more  minute  definition  of  Prelacy  is  given  by 
Principal  Hill  in  his  "Lectures  in  Divinity,"  p.  719 
(Carter's  edition) :   "  There  is  in  the  Church  a  superior 


12      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH? 

dependency  is  that  form  of  Church  govern- 
ment whose  distinctive  principle  is  that  each 

order  of  office-bearers,  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  who 
possess  in  their  own  persons  the  right  of  ordination  and 
jurisdiction,  and  who  are  called  EirioKOTroi,  as  being  the 
overseers  not  only  of  the  people,  but  also  of  the  clergy, 
and  an  inferior  order  of  ministers,  called  presbyters, 
the  literal  translation  of  the  word  irpea^vjepoi^  which  is 
rendered  in  our  English  Bible  elders,  persons  who  receive, 
from  the  ordination  of  the  bishop,  power  to  preach  and 
to  administer  the  sacraments,  who  are  set  over  the  peo- 
ple, but  are  themselves  under  the  government  of  the 
bishop,  and  have  no  right  to  convey  to  others  the  sacred 
office  which  he  gives  them  authority  to  exercise  under 
him.'?  In  other  words,  "  the  prelatical  theory  assumes 
the  perpetuity  of  the  apostleship  as  the  governing  power 
in  the  Church,  which,  therefore,  consists  of  those  who 
profess  the  true  religion  and  are  subject  to  apostle- 
bishops.  This  is  the  Anglican  or  High  Church  form  of 
this  theory.  In  its  Low  Church  form,  the  prelatical  the- 
ory simply  teaches  that  there  was  originally  a  threefold 
order  in  the  ministry,  and  that  there  should  be  now." 
(Dr.  Hodge,  "What  is  Presbyterianism ?"  p.  5.)  The 
papal  form  adds  to  the  theory  the  ideas  that  Peter  was 
the  primate  of  the  apostles,  that  the  bishop  of  Koine, 
as  his  successor,  is  primate  over  the  apostle-bishops,  and 
that  it  is  essential  to  the  Church  to  have  "a  vicar  of 
Christ,  a  perpetual  college  of  apostles,  and  the  people 
subject  to  their  infallible  control."  Three  orders  in  the 
ministry — deacons,  priests  and  bishops — the  last  named 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION.  13 

separate  congregation  is  under  Christ  subject 
to  no  external  jurisdiction  whatever,  but  has 
within  itself — in  its  office-bearers  and  mem- 
bers— all  the  materials  of  government,  and  is 
such  as  is  at  present  in  practical  operation 
among  Congregationalists  and  Baptists.  Pres- 
bytery is  that  form  of  Church  government 
which  is  dispensed  by  presbyters  or  elders, 
met  in  session,  presbytery,  synod,  or  general 
assembly ;  and  is  such  as  is  presented  in  the 
several  Presbyterian  Churches  of  Ireland, 
Scotland,  England  and  America.  These  three 
forms  of  ecclesiastical  polity  are  at  this  mo- 
ment extensively  prevalent  in  Christendom. 
Indeed,  every  other  organization  that  any 
considerable  body  of  Christians  has  adopted 
is  only  a  modification  or  a  mixture  of  some 
of  the  systems  we  have  named.* 

of  whom  are  the  successors  of  the  apostles  and  the 
rulers  of  all:  this  is  the  one  principle  which  runs 
through  all  the  varied  and  varying  forms  of  prelacy. 

P. 

*  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  for  instance,  in 

its  government  is  a  mixture  of  Episcopacy  and  Presby- 

terianism.    It  recognizes  two  offices  which  are  also  orders 

in  the  ministry — that  of  deacons,  who  are  preaching  min- 

2 


14      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

A  very  brief  examination  enables  us  to  see 
'that  these  three  systems  differ  very  widely  in 
their  characteristic  features.  Not  only  so,  but 
Prelacy,  in  all  its  main  principles,  is  opposed 
rto  Presbytery ;  and  Independency,  in  its  main 
^principles,  is  opposed  to  both.  It  follows 
that  three  forms  differing  so  very  much  can- 
not all  be  right,  and  cannot,  of  course,  have 
equal  claims  on  the  attachment  and  support 
of  enlightened  and  conscientious  men.  It  is 
self-evident,  moreover,  that  the  word  of  God, 
the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  cannot  ap- 
prove of  all;  for  as  the  word  of  God  never 
contradicts  itself,  it  cannot  sanction  contradict- 
ory systems.  Some  one  of  the  three  must  be 
more  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God,  as 
expressed  in  the  Scriptures,  than  either  of  the 

isters,  and  that  of  presbyters  or  elders,  who  are  a  higher 
order  of  the  ministry,  and  to  whom  alone  belong  the 
powers  of  government  and  of  ordination.  It  also  pos- 
sesses a  third  office,  that  of  bishop  or  general  superinten- 
dent, which  in  order  is  Presbyterial,  but  in  office  Episcopal. 
(Hawley's  "  Manual  of  Methodism,"  pp.  144-150.)  But 
none  of  these  officers  is  chosen  by  the  people.  There 
is  not  a  plurality  of  elders  in  each  church ;  not  are  the 
conferences  church  courts  of  review  and  appeal.       P. 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION.  15 

others,  and  to  know  which  of  them  is  so 
should  be  a  subject  of  deep  interest  to  every 
child  of  God.  A  Christian,  of  all  men,  is 
bound  to  be  a  lover  of  the  truth ;  and  we  are 
warranted  in  supposing  that  if  a  Christian 
could  only  see  to  which  of  these  competing 
systems  the  word  of  truth  bears  witness,  he 
would  support  it  with  all  his  might,  and  would 
lend  no  encouragement  to  the  others.  If  a 
man,  after  he  sees  the  difference,  can  hold 
what  he  knows  to  be  merely  human  in  the 
same  estimation  with  what  he  knows  to  be 
divine,  let  him  bid  farewell  to  his  Chris- 
tianity, and  cease  to  pretend  that  he  cherishes 
any  attachment  to  the  truth.  The  religion  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  unless  we  greatly  mistake  its 
spirit,  binds  all  who  receive  it  to  prefer  the 
true  to  the  false,  the  right  to  the  wrong,  the 
good  to  the  evil ;  and  for  us  to  be  tempted  by 
any  consideration  to  hold  them  in  equal  rev- 
erence and  render  them  equal  support  is  to 
fling  one  of  the  first  requirements  of  Chris- 
tianity away  from  us.  The  influence  of  a 
Christian  is  often  very  little  in  this  world ; 
but  whatever  it  is,  it  is  a  talent,  for  which, 


16         WHICH   IS    THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

like  his  time,  his  money  or  his  intellectual 
power,  he  is  accountable  to  God,  and  that  in- 
fluence ought  ever  to  be  on  the  side  of  the 
truth,  never  against  the  truth. 

Which,  then,  of  the  three  forms  of  Church 
government  prevalent  throughout  the  world 
is  it  the  duty  of  a  Christian  to  select  and  to 
support  ? 

This  question  must  be  decided  by  the  stan- 
dard of  the  word  of  God.  That  book  is 
quite  sufficient  to  point  out  the  path  of  duty 
in  this  as  well  as  in  all  other  matters,  for.  it 
was  intended  by  its  divine  Author  to  be  our 
guide  in  matters  of  practice  as  well  as  of  faith. 
The  Bible  furnishes  us  with  peculiar  facilities 
for  forming  an  opinion  on  this  very  point.  It 
tells  us  of  a  Church  that  was  organized  in 
the  wrorlcl  eighteen  hundred  years  ago.  The 
founders  of  that  Church  were  apostles  and 
prophets,  acting  by  the  authority  of  God. 
Every  fact  known  with  certainty  about  the 
original  constitution  of  the  Church  is  pre- 
served in  the  Bible;  everything  preserved 
elsewhere  is  only  hearsay  and  tradition.  We 
read  in  Scripture  very  many  facts  that  enable 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION.  17 

us  to  know  with  tolerable  accuracy  the  his- 
tory, doctrine,  worship  and  government  of 
that  Church  which  existed  in  apostolic  days. 
The  principles  of  government  set  up  in  a 
Church  which  was  founded  by  inspired  men 
must  have  had,  we  are  sure,  the  approbation 
of  God.  Corruptions  in  government  as  well 
as  in  doctrine  sprang  up  at  a  very  early 
period,  but  the  Church  in  apostolic  days  was 
purer  in  those  aspects  than  it  ever  has  been  in 
subsequent  times.  The  most  obvious  method, 
therefore,  of  arriving  at  the  truth  is  to  com- 
pare our  modern  systems  of  ecclesiastical 
government  with  the  model  presented  in  the 
holy  Scriptures.  That  which  bears  the  closest 
resemblance  to  the  divine  original  is  most 
likely  itself  to  be  divine. 

The  warmest  friends  of  existing  ecclesiasti- 
cal systems  cannot  fairly  object  to  such  a  test. 
There  is  scarcely  a  Church  on  earth  that  is 
not  loud  in  its  pretensions  to  apostolicity. 
The  Prelatic  Churches  claim  to  be  apostolic. 
The  Independent  Churches  claim  to  be  apos- 
tolic. The  Presbyterian  Churches  claim  to  be 
apostolic.     Each  of  these  denominations  pro- 

2* 


18      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

fesses  to  maintain  the  same  doctrine,  worship 
and  government  that  distinguished  the  Church 
which  was  planted  by  the  apostles  of  the  Lord. 
On  one  of  these  points — that  of  ecclesiastical 
government — we  propose  to  examine  these 
claims  by  the  very  test  that  themselves  have 
chosen.  Divesting  ourselves  of  all  prejudice, 
we  come  to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony,  de- 
sirous to  know  what  God  says  on  the  topic  in 
question,  and  determined  to  follow  where  the 
Scripture  points,  let  that  be  where  it  may. 
Let  us  search  the  Bible,  to  see  what  it  teaches 
on  this  great  theme.  If,  on  a  thorough  exam- 
ination, we  fail  to  discover  there  any  clear  and 
definite  principles  of  Church  government,  the 
conclusion  of  necessity  follows  that  Prelacy, 
Independency,  and  Presbytery  are  upon  a 
level — none  of  them  is  based  upon  divine 
authority — and  it  becomes  a  matter  of  mere 
expediency  and  convenience  which  form  we 
support.  If  we  find,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
certain  great  principles  of  Church  govern- 
ment are  embodied  in  the  Scriptures,  then, 
when  we  have  ascertained  accurately  what 
these   principles   are,  we   have   reached   the 


STATEMENT   OF   THE    QUESTION".  19 

mind  of  God  upon  the  matter,  and  we  have 
discovered  a  touch-stone  wherewith  we  can 
try  the  value  of  existing  systems,  and  deter- 
mine how  much  is  human  and  how  much 
divine  in  every  one  of  them. 


MEANING  OF  THE  WORD  CHURCH. 

The  word  Church  in  our  common  discourse 
is  used  in  a  variety  of  senses.  Sometimes  it 
signifies  the  material  building  erected  for  di- 
vine worship ;  sometimes  it  means  the  people 
usually  assembling  in  such  a  building;  some- 
times the  aggregate  body  of  the  clergy  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  laity  ;  sometimes  the  col- 
lective body  of  professing  Christians.  As 
general  use  is  the  law  of  language,  it  does  not 
become  us  to  take  exception  to  the  variety  of 
significations  that  are  given  to  the  term  by 
our  best  writers,  nor  can  we  even  say  that 
much  practical  inconvenience  arises  from  them, 
inasmuch  as  the  accompanying  circumstances 
usually  determine  the  specific  sense  in  which 
the  word  is  to  be  understood.  But  it  is  never 
to  be  forgotten  that  when  we  come  to  the  in- 


20      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

terpretation  of  the  word  of  God,  the  variety 
of  senses  commonly  attached  to  the  term  is 
altogether  inadmissible,  and  would,  if  adopted, 
darken  and  corrupt  the  meaning  of  divine 
revelation.  The  word  Church  in  Scripture 
has  always  one  meaning,  and  only  one — an 
assembly  of  the  people  of  God — a  society  of 
Christians.  The  Greek  word  ecclesia,  in  its 
primary  and  civil  sense,  means  any  assembly 
called  together  for  any  purpose  (Acts  xix. 
32) ;  but  in  its  appropriated  and  religious 
sense,  it  means  a  society  of  Christians,  and  is 
invariably  translated  by  the  word  Church. 
Examine  the  Scriptures  from  the  commence- 
ment to  the  close,  and  you  will  find  that  the 
word  Church  never  has  any  other  meaning 
but  that  which  we  have  stated.  Let  any  man 
who  feels  disposed  to  dispute  this  statement 
produce,  if  he  can,  any  passage  from  the  word 
of  God  where  the  sense  would  be  impaired,  if 
the  phrase  society  of  Christians  or  Christian 
assembly  were  substituted  for  the  word  Church. 
This,  we  are  persuaded,  would  be  impossible. 
Though  the  meaning  of  the  word  Church  is 
in  Scripture  always  the  same,  let  it  be  ob- 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION.  21 

served  that  its  applications  are  various.  It  is 
applied,  at  the  pleasure  of  the  writer,  to  any 
society  of  Christians,  however  great  or  how- 
ever small.  Examples  of  this  fact  will  not 
fail  to  suggest  themselves  to  all  who  are 
familiar  with  the  word  of  God.  We  give 
a  few  passages  as  specimens : 

Col.  iv.  15.  "  Salute  the  brethren  which  are 
in  Laodicea,  and  Nymphas,  and  the  Church 
which  is  in  his  house."  There  the  term  is 
applied  to  a  society  of  Christians  so  small  as 
to  be  able  to  find  accommodations  in  a  private 
dwelling-house. 

Acts  xi.  22.  "  Then  tidings  of  these  things 
came  unto  the  ears  of  the  Church  which  was 
in  Jerusalem. "  There  it  means  a  society  of 
Christians  residing  in  the  same  city,  and  in- 
cluding, as  we  know  on  excellent  authority, 
several  thousand  persons. 

Acts  vii.  38.  "This  is  he  (Moses)  that  was 
in  the  Church  in  the  wilderness  with  the 
angel  which  spake  to  him  in  Mount  Sinai, 
and  with  our  fathers :  who  received  the  lively 
oracles  to  give  unto  us."  Here  the  word 
signifies  a  society  of  Christians — an  assembly 


22      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

of  God's  people  so  large  as  to  include  a  whole 
nation,  consisting  at  the  time  of  at  least  two 
millions  in  number.  The  term  is  also  applied 
to  the  people  of  God  in  the  days  of  David, 
when  residing  in  Canaan,  spread  over  a  great 
extent  of  territory,  and  amounting  to  many 
millions.  Heb.  ii.  12,  compared  with  Psalm 
xxii.  22-25. 

1  Cor.  xii.  28.  "And  God  hath  set  some 
in  the  Church,  first,  apostles ;  secondarily, 
prophets ;  thirdly,  teachers ;  after  that  mira- 
cles; then  gifts  of  healings,  helps,  govern- 
ments, diversities  of  tongues."  Here  the  term 
means  the  society  of  Christians  residing  on 
earth;  for  it  was  among  them,  not  among  the 
saints  in  glory,  that  God  raised  up  men  en- 
dowed with  apostolic  and  prophetical  gifts. 

Eph.  v.  25.  "Husbands,  love  your  wives, 
even  as  Christ  also  loved  the  Church,  and 
gave  himself  for  it."  The  wrord  is  here  used 
to  signify  the  society  of  Christians  in  the 
largest  sense — all  for  whom  Christ  died — the 
whole  family  of  God — all  saints  in  heaven 
and  all  believers  on  earth,  viewed  as  one  great 
company. 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION.  23 

Let  it  be  observed,  however,  that,  amid  all 
this  variety  of  application,  the  word  Church 
never  alters  its  sense.  Its  meaning  in  every 
occurrence  is  the  same.  However  applied,  it 
never  ceases  to  signify  a  society  of  Christians; 
but  whether  the  society  that  the  inspired 
writer  lias  in  view  is  great  or  small,  general 
or  particular,  is  to  be  learned,  not  from  the 
term,  but  from  the  circumstances  in  which  the 
term  is  used.  In  every  instance  it  is  from  the 
context,  never  from  the  word  itself,  that  we 
are  to  gather  whether  the  society  of  Christians 
intended  by  the  writer  is  to  be  understood  of 
the  collective  company  of  God's  people  in 
heaven  and  earth,  or  only  of  those  on  the 
earth,  in  a  nation,  in  a  city  or  in  a  private 
house.  The  practice — into  which  the  best 
expositors  of  the  Scriptures  are  occasionally 
betrayed — of  taking  up  some  idea  conveyed 
by  the  context  only,  and  regarding  that  idea 
as  entering  into  the  meaning  of  some  particu- 
lar word,  has  been  shown  by  a  late  eminent 
critic  to  be  the  origin  of  those  numerous  sig- 
nifications— perplexing  by  their  very  multi- 
tude— appended  almost  to  every  word  in  our 


24      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHUKCH  ? 

classical  dictionaries,  and  the  prolific  source 
of  errors  in  the  interpretation  of  the  word  of 
God.  This  is  obviously  what  has  led  many  to 
suppose  that  the  word  Church  has  two  mean- 
ings, signifying  something  different  when  re- 
ferring to  the  universal  body  of  believers  from 
what  it  does  when  denoting  the  body  of  be- 
lievers connected  with  a  particular  locality. 
The  truth  is  that  the  word  Church  has  only 
one  meaning,  but  it  has  a  variety  of  applica- 
tions. The  term  of  itself  never  conveys  any 
idea  but  a  society  of  Christians;  it  is  the  con- 
text that  invariably  determines  its  general  or 
particular  application.  It  is  manifestly  inac- 
curate, therefore,  to  maintain  that  an  idea, 
invariably  conveyed  by  the  context,  enters 
into  the  meaning  of  the  term,  when,  as  all 
must  admit,  the  term,  apart  from  the  context, 
does  not  suggest  either  a  limited  or  universal 
application. 

Had  we  occasion  to  speak  of  the  several 
Christian  congregations  of  a  province  or 
nation  in  their  separate  capacity,  it  would  be 
quite  in  accordance  with  the  scriptural  idiom 
to  designate  them  the  Churches  of  that  region. 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION.  25 

None  can  forget  how  frequently  the  apostle 
speaks  of  the  Churches  of  Syria  and  Achaia, 
Galatia  and  Asia.  So,  if  we  required  to  speak 
of  the  individual  congregations  of  Christians 
in  Ireland — the  separate  Christian  societies 
scattered  over  the  country — we  might  denom- 
inate them  the  Churches  of  Ireland,  there 
being  nothing  in  existing  ecclesiastical  usages 
to  make  such  language  either  unintelligible 
or  liable  to  be  misunderstood.  But  it  deserves 
to  be  noticed  that  when  we  use  such  phrases 
as  the  "Established  Church  of  Scotland/'  the 
"  Episcopal  Church  of  America "  or  the 
"  Presbyterian  Church  of  Ireland/7  there  is 
no  departure  whatever  from  the  scriptural 
sense  of  the  word.  The  meaning  of  the  word 
in  Scripture,  as  we  have  seen,  invariably  is  a 
society  of  Christians,  and  this  is  precisely  its 
meaning  in  any  of  the  above  phrases,  the 
context,  at  the  same  time,  limiting  the  Chris- 
tians in  question  to  those  professing  certain 
principles  and  belonging  to  a  particular 
country.  When  we  employ,  for  instance,  such 
a  designation  as  the  Presbyterian  Church  of 
Ireland,  the  word  Church  is  used  precisely  in 

3 


26      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

the  scriptural  sense,  to  denote  a  society  of 
Christians,  which  we  learn  from  the  context 
professes  Presbyterian  principles  and  resides 
in  Ireland. 

The  propriety  of  applying  the  term  to  sig- 
nify the  Christian  people  of  a  country  does 
not  arise  from  the  fact  that  they  are  ever  as- 
sembled in  one  congregation,  either  personally 
or  by  representatives,  but  from  the  fact  that 
the  mind  contemplates  them  as  a  collective 
body.  All  saints  in  heaven  and  believers  on 
earth  are  styled  the  Church,  not  because  they 
are  assembled  either  literally  or  figuratively, 
but  because,  in  the  view  of  the  mind,  they 
are  regarded  as  a  great  society,  separated  from 
the  world,  and  united  by  common  principles 
into  one  great  brotherhood.  And  so  the 
Christians  of  any  denomination,  though  com- 
posing a  multitude  of  congregations,  may,  in 
their  aggregate  capacity,  be  properly  styled  a 
Church,  not  because  they  are  either  figura- 
tively or  literally  assembled,  but  because,  in 
the  view  of  the  mind,  they  are  regarded  as  a 
collective   body,  distinguished   from   others, 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION.  27 

and  united  among  themselves,  by  the  profes- 
sion of  a  common  creed. 

It  was  once  doubted  whether  the  Scriptures 
contain  an  example  of  the  word  Church 
being  applied  to  the  Christians  of  a  country. 
The  science  of  biblical  criticism  has  now  set 
that  question  at  rest.  The  true  reading  of 
Acts  ix.  31  is,  "  Then  had  the  Church  rest 
throughout  all  Judea,  and  Galilee,  and  Sa- 
maria; and  walking  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord, 
and  in  the  comfort  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  was 
multiplied."  No  man  with  the  slightest  pre- 
tensions to  scholarship  can  now  hesitate  about 
receiving  this  as  the  original  form  of  the  text, 
when  it  is  known  that  the  lately  discovered 
MS. — the  Codex  Sinaiticus — is  in  its  favor, 
no  less  than  A,  B,  C,  these  four  being  at  once 
the  most  ancient  and  valuable  manuscripts  of 
the   New  Testament   now  extant.*     Not   to 

*  The  ancient  MSS.  of  the  Greek  Testament  which 
are  still  in  existence,  and  to  which  critics  appeal  for  the 
settlement  of  the  inspired  text,  are,  as  a  matter  of  con- 
venience and  for  the  sake  of  easy  reference,  designated 
by  alphabetical  letters.  The  one  marked  A  was  probably 
Avritten  in  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century.  It  was  pre- 
sented to  the  English  Charles  I.  in  1628  by  the  patriarch 


28      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

speak  of  the  evidence  derivable  from  versions 
and  Fathers,  the  united  voices  of  these  four 
MSS.  is  enough  to  settle  the  correct  form  of 
any  text:  their  testimony  as  to  the  original 
reading  of  Acts  ix.  31  none  can  question; 
and  to  that  passage  we  confidently  point  as  a 
clear  instance  of  the  word  Church  being  ap- 
plied to  the  Christians  of  a  country,  viewed 
as  one  collective  society,  though  in  reality 
divided  into  many  separate  congregations. 

Some  writers,  indeed,  give  a  different  ac- 
count of  the  matter.     They  tell  us  that  the 

I 
of  Constantinople,  and  is  preserved  in  the  British  Mu- 
seum. It  contains  the  whole  Greek  Bible,  with  a  few 
chasms  in  the  New  Testament.  B  is  also  a  MS.  of  the 
whole  Greek  Bible.  It  belongs  to  the  fourth  century, 
and  since  1450  has  been  in  the  Vatican  Library.  C  was 
written  in  the  fifth  century,  and  is  now  in  the  Royal 
Library  at  Paris.  It  contains  fragments  of  the  Greek 
Old  Testament,  and  of  every  part  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  Codex  Sinaiticus  (also  marked  N)  is  the  oldest  MS. 
of  the  New  Testament  that  is  known  to  be  in  existence. 
It  probably  belongs  to  the  fourth  century,  and  is  com- 
plete. The  celebrated  Russian  critic,  Teschendorf,  found 
it  in  1859  in  the  convent  of  St.  Catherine  on  Mt.  Sinai ; 
hence  its  title.  This  is  the  one  which  is  referred  to  in 
the  text.  P. 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION.  29 

universal  community  of  Christians  in  heaven 
and  on  earth  is  called  in  Scripture  the  Church, 
not  because  they  are  viewed  as  one  great 
brotherhood,  united  by  common  principles, 
but  because  they  "are  at  all  times  truly  and 
properly  assembled  in  Jesus."  It  is  a  mere 
fancy  to  suppose  that  the  mind  ever  takes 
such  a  fact  into  account  when  employing  the 
term  in  its  universal  application ;  but  if  so, 
it  does  not  alter  the  case.  The  Christians  of 
a  particular  district,  or  of  a  province,  or  of  a 
nation,  may  be  properly  designated  a  Church 
for  the  same  reasons,  because  they  also  "are 
at  all  times  truly  and  properly  assembled  in 
Jesus."  There  is  no  sense  in  which  all  the 
Christians  on  earth  and  in  heaven  are  "as- 
sembled in  Jesus  "  that  the  Christians  of  any 
particular  country  are  not  thus  assembled.  If 
the  whole  is  assembled,  so  also  are  the  parts. 
Take  the  matter  either  way,  the  Christians  of 
a  district,  or  a  province,  or  a  kingdom,  hold- 
ing certain  principles  in  common,  if  viewed 
as  a  collective  community,  are  a  Church, 
exactly  in  the  sense  of  the  Scriptures.  They 
are  a  Society  of  Christians. 


30      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

GOVEKNMENT  OF  THE  CHUKCH. 

The  Christian  society  on  earth,  or,  as  it  is 
usually  called,  the  Church,  is  represented  in 
the  Scriptures  as  a  kingdom.  It  was  of  his 
Church  that  the  Lord  Jesus  spake  when  he 
said  to  Pilate,  "My  kingdom  is  not  of  this 
world."  John  xviii.  36.  The  fact  of  its  being 
a  kingdom  necessarily  implies  at  least  three 
things — first,  a  king  or  governor;  secondly, 
subjects;  thirdly,  laws.  In  the  Church  or 
kingdom  of  God,  the  king  is  Christ;  the  sub- 
jects are  believers  and  their  children;  the  laws 
are  the  Scriptures  of  truth. 

Every  king  has  officers  under  him  who  are 
charged  with  the  execution  of  his  laws,  and 
who  have  authority  from  the  crown  to  do 
justice  and  judgment.  Judges  and  magis- 
trates are  the  office-bearers  of  a  kingdom,  de- 
riving their  power  from  the  monarch  under 
whom  they  serve,  and  putting  the  laws  in  force 
among  all  ranks  and  classes  of  the  people. 
Hence  a  very  palpable  division  of  a  kingdom 
is  into  rulers  and  ruled — those  whose  duty  is 
to   administer   the  law,  and  those  who   are 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION.  31 

bound  to  obey  it.  The  same  distinction  holds 
in  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  It  also  consists  of 
rulers  and  ruled — the  office-bearers  entrusted 
with  the  dispensation  of  the  laws,  and  the 
people  who  are  commanded  to  yield  them 
submission.  This  is  very  plain,  from  Heb. 
xiii.  17:  "Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over 
you,  and  submit  yourselves:  for  they  watch 
for  your  souls,  as  they  that  must  give  ac- 
count." It  is  clear  from  this  passage  that 
there  are  some  in  the  Church  whose  duty  it  is 
to  rule;  they  are  the  office-bearers  of  the 
Church.  It  is  no  less  clear  that  there  are 
others  in  the  Church  whose  duty  is  to  obey; 
they  are  the  private  members — the  subjects  of 
the  kingdom — the  people. 

But  in  every  society  where  it  is  the  ac- 
knowledged duty  of  some  parties  to  exercise 
authority,  and  of  others  to  practice  submis- 
sion, there  must  be  what  is  called  government ; 
for  in  such  authority  exercised  on  the  one 
hand,  and  in  such  submission  rendered  on  the 
other,  the  essence  of  all  government  consists. 
Even  were  there  no  passage  in  the  Scriptures 
but  that  last  quoted  bearing  upon  the  subject, 


32      WHICH    IS    THE    APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

it  is  undeniable  that  government  was  estab- 
lished in  the  apostolic  Church.  If  govern- 
ment existed,  some  form  of  government  must 
have  been  adopted ; .  for  to  say  there  was  es- 
tablished in  the  kingdom  of  Christ  govern- 
ment without  a  form  of  government  is  absurd. 
History  tells  us  of  many  ecclesiastical  and 
political  wonders;  but  of  all  the  strange  things 
that  have  been  witnessed  in  the  world  or  in 
the  Church  since  the  beginning  of  time,  there 
has  never  yet  appeared  government  without  a 
form  of  government.  The  thing  is  impossi- 
ble. Government  in  itself  is  an  abstraction. 
The  moment  it  puts  forth  power,  it  becomes 
a  reality — it  stands  before  the  world  a  visible 
thing — it  assumes  a  form. 

That  there  was  government  in  the  apos- 
tolic Church,  and  that  this  government  exist- 
ed under  a  certain  form,  seems  clear  to  dem- 
onstration. To  determine  with  precision  what 
this  form  was  is  a  matter  of  great  conse- 
quence, for  it  must  be  evident  to  all  that  a 
plan  of  Church  government,  instituted  by  the 
apostles  of  the  Lord,  acting  under  the  guid- 
ance of  the  Holy  Spirit,  must  carry  with  it  a 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION.  33 

degree  of  lawfulness  and  authority  that  no 
human  system,  though  in  itself  a  master-piece 
of  wisdom — made  venerable  by  age,  or  recom- 
mended by  expediency — ever  can  exhibit; 
and  that  every  form  of  Church  government 
is  deserving  of  respect  only  so  far  as  it  con- 
forms in  its  principles  to  that  divine  original. 
But  there  are  obvious  reasons  that  make  it  a 
matter  of  some  difficulty  to  ascertain  with 
accuracy  the  system  of  ecclesiastical  polity 
that  was  established  in  the  New  Testament 
Church. 

1.  The  apostles,  writing  to  Christians  who 
were  themselves  members  of  the  apostolic 
Church,  and  of  course  well  acquainted  with 
its  organization,  did  not  judge  it  necessary  to 
enter  into  detailed  description  of  the  Chris- 
tian society.  To  do  so  would  have  been  un- 
natural. They  do  occasionally  state  facts 
bearing  on  Church  government,  and  hint  in- 
directly at  prevailing  practices.  These  hints 
and  facts  were  sufficiently  suggestive  and  in- 
telligible to  the  persons  originally  addressed, 
but  by  us,  who  live  in  a  distant  age,  in 
a    foreign    country   and    among    associations 


34      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

widely  different,  they  are  not  so  easily  under- 
stood. 

2.  They  do  not  even  arrange  such  facts  as 
bear  upon  the  question  in  systematic  order. 
If  man  had  had  the  making  of  the  Bible,  it 
would  have  been  a  very  different  book ;  but 
as  that  circumstance  was  not  left  to  our 
option,  we  must  take  it  as  we  find  it.  On 
examination,  we  see  that  it  teaches  nothing  in 
scientific  order.  Even  morality  and  doctrine 
are  not  there  arranged  in  regular  system,  but 
are  conveyed  in  detached  portions,  and  our 
industry  is  stimulated  by  having  to  gather 
the  scattered  fragments,  to  compare  them  with 
each  other,  and  to  work  them  up  into  order 
for  ourselves.  So  ecclesiastical  polity  is  not 
taught  in  Scripture  methodically;  but  away 
over  the  wide  field  of  revelation,  facts  and 
hints  and  circumstances  lie  scattered,  which 
we  are  to  search  for,  and  examine,  and  com- 
bine, and  classify.  Now,  all  do  not  agree  in 
the  arrangement  of  these  facts,  nor  in  the 
inferences  that  legitimately  flow  from  them, 
nor  in  the  mode  of  constructing  a  system 
from  the  detached  material. 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION.  35 

These  things  make  it  difficult  to  ascertain 
with  accuracy,  and  still  more  so,  with  unan- 
imity, the  form  of  Church  government  that 
existed  in  apostolic  days.*    But  difficult  as  it 

*  A  chief  reason  why  the  principles  of  government  -r 
are  not  prescribed  at  length  and  in  a  formal  way  in  the 
New  Testament  is  this  :  While  the  Church  of  God  was 
reorganized  after  the  ascension  of  our  Lord,  it  remained 
essentially  the  same  with  the  Old  Testament  body  ;  and 
when  its  separate  organization  took  place,  it  was  on  the 
ancient  model.  The  Eldership  existed  in  the  Jewish 
Church,  and  is  the  permanent  essential  office  of  the 
organization  under  both  dispensations.  Hence,  the  cre- 
ation of  it  is  nowhere  recorded  in  the  New  Testament, 
as  in  the  case  of  deacons  and  apostles,  because  the 
latter  were  created  to  meet  new  and  special  exigencies, 
while  the  former  was  transmitted  from  the  earliest 
times.  (See  Dr.  J.  A.  Alexander's  Primitive  Church 
Officers,  p.  28.)  Archbishop  Whately  says  "it  is 
likely  that  several  of  the  earliest  Christian  churches 
were  converted  synagogues,  which  became  Christian 
churches  as  soon  as  the  members,  or  as  soon  as  the  main 
part  of  their  members,  acknowledged  Jesus  as  the  Mes- 
siah." In  such  cases,  he  says,  "  the  apostles  did  not 
there  so  much  form  a  Christian  church  (or  congregation, 
ecclesia)  as  make  an  existing  congregation  Christian  by 
introducing  the  Christian  sacraments  and  worship,  and 
establishing  whatever  regulations  were  necessary  for  the 
newly  adopted  faith,  leaving  the  machinery  (if  I  may 
so  speak)  of  government  unchanged,  the  rulers  of  syna- 


36      WHICH    IS   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH? 

seems,  it  is  proved  quite  possible,  by  a  thorough 
and  unprejudiced  examination  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, to  discover  the  main  principles  that 
entered  into  the  constitution  of  the  primitive 
Church.  We  say  the  main  principles — more 
than  these  we  need  not  expect  to  find.  The 
word  of  God,  except  in  some  rare  instances, 
never  enters  into  details — it  states  principles. 
This  is  a  very  noticeable  peculiarity  of  the 
divine  legislation  that  deserves  a  passing 
remark.  In  every  civilized  country  it  may 
be  observed  how  those  entrusted  with  the 
duty  of  government  aim  to  provide  a  law  for 
every  specific  case.  The  human  legislator 
descends  to  details.     The  result  of  this  in  our 

gogues,  elders  and  other  officers  (whether  spiritual  or 
ecclesiastical,  or  both)  being  already  provided  for  in  the 
existing  institutions."  ("The  Kingdom  of  Christ  De- 
lineated," pp.  84-86.)  Hence,  as  the  church-member- 
ship of  the  children  of  believers  is  not  formally  com- 
manded in  the  New  Testament,  because  it  already 
existed,  so  the  permanent  governmental  principles  of 
the  Church  are  not  explicitly  enunciated,  because  they 
were  already  existing  as  facts.  In  both  cases  unrepealed 
laws  are  implied  in  the  New  Testament  history,  and 
instances  of  obedience  to  them  in  the  apostolic  Church 
are  given  for  our  guidance.  P. 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION.  37 

own  country  is  that  the  common  and  statute 
laws  of  England  are  so  bulky  that  the  books 
in  which  they  are  written  would  make  of 
themselves  a  magnificent  library.  Parliament 
meets  every  year  for  the  express  purpose  of 
constructing  new  and  amending  old  laws,  to 
suit  the  ever-varying  circumstances  of  the 
country  and  the  times;  and  notwithstanding 
all,  cases  occur  daily  in  the  public  courts 
wherein  the  most  accomplished  jurists  have 
to  acknowledge  that  the  existing  laws  deter- 
mine nothing.  But  observe  how  the  divine 
law  proceeds  on  a  method  quite  different.  It 
rarely  enters  into  specific  details,  but  lays 
down  general  principles  any  one  of  which  is 
quite  sufficient  to  decide  a  whole  multitude 
of  cases.  Instead,  for  instance,  of  attempting 
to  prescribe  every  form  of  good  that  it  is 
right  for  a  man  to  perform  to  his  neighbor, 
it  lays  down  a  principle  quite  sufficient  to 
meet  every  case — Thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bor as  thyself.  Instead  of  enumerating  the 
different  ways  by  which  children  are  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  that  they  owe  their  parents, 
Scripture   enacts   this   general   law,   holding 

4 


38      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

good  in  every  case — Honor  thy  father  and 
thy  mother.  Declining  to  specify  every  sem- 
blance of  sin  that  it  were  well  for  Christians 
to  avoid,  the  statutes  of  the  Lord  direct  us  to 
— Abstain  from  all  appearance  of  evil.  Hu- 
man legislation  enters  into  minute  details, 
but  divine  legislation  enacts  general  princi- 
ples. The  result  is  that  while  there  is  per- 
haps more  room  left  for  difference  of  opinion 
in  the  interpretation  and  application  of  the 
enactments  of  a  code  of  law  constructed  on 
the  latter  system,  yet  this  disadvantage  is 
more  than  counterbalanced  by  the  fact  that 
the  laws  of  God  are  in  themselves  perfect; 
that  they  do  not  change  with  the  ever  varying 
circumstances  of  countries  and  of  times;  that 
they  meet  every  case  which  can  possibly  occur; 
and  that  they  are  compressed  into  a  reason- 
able size,  being  all  written  in  a  book  so  small 
that  it  can  be  lifted  in  the  hand  or  carried  in 
the  pocket.  Now,  the  Scripture  teaches  us 
Church  government  as  it  teaches  morality. 
It   does   not   furnish   minute  details,  but  it 

Supplies     THE    GREAT     LIVING     PRINCIPLES 

that  entered  into  the  polity  of  the  Apostolic 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION.  39 

Church.     What  these   main   principles  were 
it  is  now  our  purpose  to  ascertain.* 

It  is  the  common  practice  of  writers,  in 
discussing  the  important  subject  of  ecclesias- 
tical government,  to  select  some  one  of  our 
modern  churches  which  happens  to  be  a 
favorite,  delineate  its  characteristic  features, 
and  then  proceed  to  show  that  they  are  a 
reflection  of  the  pattern  presented  in  the 
word  of  God.  That  this  plan  has  some 
recommendations  we  can  readily  believe,  but 
it  is  no  less  obvious  that  it  is  liable  to  grave 
objections.  It  seems  to  assume  at  the  com- 
mencement the  conclusion  to  which  the 
reasoner  can  only  hope  to  conduct  us  after 
a  sound  process  of  logic.  It  somehow  pro- 
duces the  fatal  impression  that  the  writer  has 
determined  in  the  first  place  that  his  view  of 
the  subject  is  right,  and  then  goes  to  Scrip- 
ture to  search  for  proof  of  it.  The  author 
may  be  the  most  impartial  and  truth-loving 
of  men,  but  his  very  plan  betrays  a  preference 
for  some  particular  system,  and  thus,  at  the 

*  This  paragraph  was  suggested  by  reading  Dr. 
Paley's  Sermon  on  Kom.  xiv.  7,   p.  521. 


40      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHUKCH  ? 

outset,  awakes  the  prejudices  of  many  readers. 
Besides,  it  affords  opportunities  for  viewing 
passages  of  Scripture  apart  from  their  con- 
nection, and  tempts  writers  to  quote  their 
favorite  texts,  the  sound  of  which  only  is 
upon  their  side.  For  these  reasons  we  do  not 
choose  to  adopt  this  method  on  the  present 
occasion. 

The  plan  of  procedure  we  propose  is  more 
unusual,  though,  we  trust,  not  less  satisfactory. 
"We  will  examine  the  Holy  Scriptures  with  a 
view  of  ascertaining  from  them  the  various 
facts  that  bear  on  the  government  of  the 
apostolic  Church.  We  will  produce  the  pas- 
sages, contemplate  them  in  their  immediate 
connection,  unfold  their  meaning,  and  try  if 
by  their  aid  we  can  arrive  at  great  princi- 
ples. We  will  then  turn  to  our  modern 
Churches,  view  the  different  forms  of  ecclesi- 
astical polity  that  exist  in  the  world  at  pres- 
ent, and  see  which  of  them  it  is  that  embodies 
all  or  most  of  these  principles.  When  this  is 
done,  we  shall  have  found  the  denomination 
that,  in  point  of  government,  is  best  entitled, 
to  be  regarded  as  the  apostolic  Church. 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION.  41 

This  process  of  reasoning  is  so  very  clear 
and  simple  that  there  is  no  room  for  practi- 
cing deception  either  on  ourselves  or  our  read- 
ers. The  very  humblest  intellect  may  follow 
our  logic  to  the  close.  There  are  but  two 
steps  until  we  arrive  at  the  conclusion  : 

First,  we  are  to  ascertain  from  the  unerring 
word  of  God  what  were  the  main  principles 
in  the  government  of  the  churches  founded 
by  the  apostles  of  the  Lord  ;  %and,  secondly, 
we  are  to  ascertain  in  which  of  our  modern 
Churches  these  main  principles  are  most  fully 
acknowledged  and  carried  out. 

We  will  then  apply  to  the  settlement  of  the 
matter  an  axiom  radiant  in  the  light  of  its 
own    self-evidence.       That    axiom     is,    the 

MODERN  CHURCH  WHICH  EMBODIES  IN  ITS 
GOVERNMENT  MOST  APOSTOLIC  PRINCIPLES 
COMES  NEAREST  IN  ITS  GOVERNMENT  TO  THE 

APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 

4  * 


APOSTOLIC  PRINCIPLES. 

Ij^ROM  a  careful  examination  of  the  Scrip- 
ture, we  find  at  least  four  different  kinds 
of  office-bearers  in  the  apostolic  Church 
— 1.  Apostles.  2.  Evangelists.  3.  Bishops, 
also  called  pastors  and  teachers.  4.  Deacons. 
Each  one  of  these  had  a  right  to  exercise  all 
the  offices  inferior  to  his  own,  but  one  filling 
an  inferior  had  no  right  to  discharge  the 
duties  of  a  superior  office.  Thus,  the  apos- 
tolic office  included  all  the  others,  and  a 
bishop  or  elder  had  the  right  to  act  as  a 
deacon,  so  long  as  his  doing  so  did  not  impede 
the  due  discharge  of  duties  peculiarly  his 
own.  A  deacon,  on  the  other  hand,  had  no 
right  to  exercise  the  office  of  a  bishop,  nor 
had  a  bishop  any  authority  to  take  on  him 
the  duties  of  an  apostle.  Each  superior  office 
included  all  below  it. 

Two  of  these  offices — those  of  apostle  and 
evangelist — were  temporary,  necessary  at  the 
first  establishment   of  Christianity,   but  not 

42 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  43. 

necessary  to  be  perpetuated.  The  apostles 
Mere  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  endowed  with  the  power  of  working 
miracles  and  of  conferring  the  Holy  Ghost 
by  the  laying  on  of  their  hands,  the  infallible 
expounders  of  the  divine  will  and  the  found- 
ers of  the  Christian  Church;  and  having 
served  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  sent, 
they  disappeared  out  of  the  world,  and,  as 
apostles,  have  left  no  successors.  Evangelists 
were  missionaries — men  who  traveled  from 
place  to  place  preaching  the  gospel,  and  who 
acted  as  the  assistants  and  delegates  of  the 
apostles  in  organizing  churches.*  Of  these, 
Philip  and  Timothy  and  Titus  were  the  most 
eminent  examples.  It  deserves  to  be  re- 
marked, with  regard  to  these  temporary  or, 
as  they  are  usually  called,  extraordinary  office- 

*  While  our  Presbyterian  "Form  of  Government" 
does  not,  in  Ch.  III.,  expressly  mention  evangelists 
among  "the  ordinary  and  perpetual  officers  in  the 
church,"  it  does  provide,  in  Ch.  XV.,  an  ordination  ser- 
vice for  such  ministers  "  to  preach  the  gospel,  administer 
sealing  ordinances  and  organize  churches  in  frontier  or 
destitute  settlements."  In  the  missionary  work  of  the 
Church  they  are  still  needed  and  provided  for.         P. 


44      WHICH    IS    THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH? 

bearers,  that  their  sphere  of  duty  was  not 
limited  to  a  congregation,  but  extended  to 
the  Church  at  large.  They  were  members  of 
any  Christian  society  within  whose  bounds 
they  resided  for  a  time,  but  their  mission  was 
to  the  world,  and  their  authority  extended  to 
the  Church  universal. 

The  offices  of  bishop  and  deacon  were,  on 
the  other  hand,  designed  to  be  perpetuated  in 
the  Church.  The  bishops,  or,  as  they  are 
more  usually  called,  elders,*  and  pastors,  and 
teachers,  were  office-bearers,  whose  duty  it 
was  to  instruct  and  govern  the  Church.  The 
deacons  had  charge  of  temporal  concerns,  and 
were  entrusted  with  the  special  duty  of  minis- 
tering to  the  necessities  of  the  poor.  The 
Church  can  never  cease  to  have  need  of  these 
two  offices,  so  long  as  its  members  have 
spiritual  and  temporal  wants  to  be  supplied. 
But  it  is  to  be  observed,  with  regard  to  the 
bishops  and  deacons,  that  they  were  mainly 
congregational  officers.  The  sphere  of  their 
duty  was  not  so  general  as  that  of  the  apos- 

*This  is  assumed  for  the  present:  it  will  be  proved 
afterward. 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  45 

ties,  prophets  and  evangelists,  but  lay  for  the 
most  part  within  the  bounds  of  that  particu- 
lar church  or  district  for  which  they  were 
appointed  to  act. 

Dr.  Campbell  thus  expounds  the  special  ne- 
cessity that  existed  in  the  primitive  Church, 
both  for  the  temporary  and  perpetual  office- 
bearers: "To  take  a  similitude  from  tem- 
poral things:  it  is  one  thing  to  conquer  a 
kingdom  and  become  master  of  it,  and  another 
thing  to  govern  it  when  conquered  so  as  to 
retain  the  possession  which  has  been  acquired. 
The  same  agents  and  the  same  expedients  are 
not  properly  adapted  to  both.  For  the  first 
of  these  purposes,  there  was  a  set  of  extraor- 
dinary ministers  or  officers  in  the  Church,  who, 
like  the  military  forces  intended  for  conquest, 
could  not  be  fixed  to  a  particular  spot  whilst 
there  remained  any  provinces  to  conquer. 
Their  charge  was,  in  a  manner,  universal,  and 
their  functions  ambulatory.  For  the  second, 
there  was  a  set  of  ordinary  ministers  Or 
pastors,  corresponding  to  civil  governors,  to 
whom  it  was  necessary  to  allot  distinct 
charges  or  precincts,  to  which   their  services 


46      WHICH    IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

were  chiefly  to  be  confined,  in  order  to  in- 
struct the  people,  to  preside  in  the  public 
worship  and  religious  ordinances,  and  to  give 
them  the  necessary  assistance  for  the  regula- 
tion of  their  conduct.  Without  this  second 
arrangement,  the  acquisitions  made  could  not 
have  been  long  retained.  There  must  have 
ensued  a  universal  relapse  into  idolatry  and 
infidelity.  This  distinction  of  ministers  into 
extraordinary  and  ordinary  has  been  admit- 
ted by  controvertists  on  both  sides,  and  there- 
fore cannot  justly  be  considered  as  introduced 
(which  sometimes  happens  to  distinctions)  to 
serve  a  hypothesis."  *  With  these  prelimi- 
nary observations,  we  proceed  in  search  of — 

THE  FIKST  PKINCIPLE. 

All  offices  in  the  Christian  Church  take 
origin  from  the  Lord  Jesus.  Himself  is  the 
Author  and  embodiment  of  them  all;  he  is 
the  Apostle  of  our  profession;  he  is  an 
Evangelist,  preaching  peace  to  them  that  are 
afar  off,  and  to  them  that  are  nigh;  he  is  the 

*  Lectures   on    Ecclesiastical    History,   Lecture   iv., 
3d  Edition,  London,  1824. 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  47 

great  Pastor  or  Shepherd  of  the  sheep — the 
Bishop  of  souls;  and  he  is  the  Deacon  or 
servant  who  came  not  to  be  ministered  to, 
but  to  minister.  All  offices  in  the  Church  are 
embodied  in  the  person  of  Christ. 

The  apostles  were  the  only  office-bearers 
chosen  during  the  life-time  of  the  Lord.  They 
held  their  appointments  immediately  from 
himself.  They  were  called  to  the  work  of 
the  ministry  by  his  voice,  and  they  received 
their  commission  at  his  hands.  Simon  and 
Andrew  were  casting  their  nets  into  the  Lake 
of  Galilee,  as  Jesus  walked  upon  the  beach, 
but  at  his  call  they  left  their  nets  to  follow 
him  through  the  world.  The  sons  of  Zebedee 
heard  his  voice,  and  forthwith  they  forgot 
both  father  and  mother  in  their  ambition  to 
become  fishers  of  men.  When  Christ  said, 
"  Follow  me,"  Levi  forsook  the  receipt  of 
custom,  and  was  a  publican  no  more.  The 
personal  call  of  the  Lord  Jesus  wTas  then,  and 
is  still,  the  first  and  best  of  all  authority  to 
hold  office  in  the  Church  of  God.  Let  a  man 
only  satisfy  us  that  he  holds  his  appointment 
directly  from  the  Lord,  as  the  apostles  did, 


48       AVHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH  ? 

and  we  require  no  more  to  induce  us  to  sub- 
mit to  him. 

But  after  the  Lord  had  ascended  to  heaven, 
the  personal  call,  except  in  case  of  Paul,  who 
was  one  born  out  of  due  time,  was  not  the 
passport  of  any  man  either  to  the  ministry  or 
apostleship.  Men  were  no  more  put  into 
office  by  the  living  voice  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 
The  departure  of  the  Master,  and  the  vacancy 
left  in  the  list  of  apostles  by  the  death  of 
Judas,  gave  opportunity  for  bringing  into 
operation  a  new  principle.  The  first  chapter 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  brings  the  whole 
case  before  us.  Let  us  specially  examine  the 
passage — Acts  i.  13-26 — that  we  may  have 
full  possession  of  the  facts.  It  appears  that 
in  the  interval  between  the  ascension  and  the 
day  of  Pentecost  the  disciples  met  for  prayer 
and  supplication  in  an  upper  room  of  the  city 
of  Jerusalem.  The  mother  and  brethren  of 
Jesus  were  present,  as  were  also  the  eleven 
apostles.  Taken  together,  they  numbered  one 
hundred  and  twenty  in  all.  Peter  rose  and 
addressed  the  company.  He  reminded  them 
of   the  vacancy  in  the   apostleship.     Judas, 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  49 

who  betrayed  the  Master,  was  dead,  and  the 
office  that  he  forfeited  by  his  transgression 
must  be  conferred  upon  another.  He  states 
the  necessary  qualifications  of  him  who  was 
to  be  the  successor  of  Judas :  he  must  be  one 
who  had  intercourse  with  the  eleven  from  the 
commencement  of  Christ's  ministry  to  the 
close.  He  states  the  duty  of  the  new  apostle : 
he  was  to  be  with  the  others  a  witness  of 
Christ's  resurrection.  Such  was  the  case  that 
Peter  put  before  the  men  and  brethren  met 
together  in  that  upper  room  of  Jerusalem. 
We  then  read  in  verse  23:  "They  ap- 
pointed two,  Joseph  called  Barsabas,  who 
was  surnamed  Justus,  and  Matthias."  In 
consequence  of  this  double  choice,  it  became 
necessary  to  decide  which  should  be  regarded 
as  the  true  apostle,  which,  after  prayer,  was 
done  by  casting  lots.  But  let  it  be  particu- 
larly observed  that,  while  Peter  explained 
the  necessary  qualifications  and  the  peculiar 
duties  of  the  office,  the  appointment  of  the 
person  did  not  rest  with  Peter,  but  with  the 
men  and  brethren  to  whom  the  address  of 
Peter  was  directed.     Further,  it  is  not  to  be 

5 


50      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

forgotten  that  the  office  to  which  Matthias' 
succeeded  is  in  the  20th  verse  termed  a 
bishopric,  and  how  it  is  said  in  the  25th 
verse,  he  had  "to  take  part  of  this  ministry 
.and  apostleship."  The  men  and  brethren,  at 
the  instigation  of  Peter,  exercised  the  right 
of  appointing  a  man  to  the  bishopric — that  is, 
to  the  office  of  the  bishop— and  to  take  part  in 
the  ministry.  In  the  apostolic  Church  the 
people  appointed  Matthias  to  be  a  minister — 
a  bishop — an  apostle.*    The  case  recorded  in 

*  The  argument  in  reference  to  the  permanent  officers 
of  the  church  will  not  be  weakened  if  we  admit  that  in 
setting  apart  Matthias  as  an  apostle  there  was  no  bal- 
loting or  choice  by  the  church,  but  that  in  this  case,  as 
-well  as  in  that  of  the  other  apostles,  the  Head  of  the 
Church  directly  chose  him.  We  may  concede  that 
Justus  and  Matthias  were  the  only  disciples  who  possessed 
.the  necessary  qualifications  for  the  apostleship ;  that 
"  the  part  performed  by  the  apostles  or  disciples  in  this 
grave  transaction  was  entirely  ministerial,  and  consisted 
in  ascertaining  who  were  eligible,  on  the  principles  laid 
down  by  Peter,  and  then  placing  the  man  thus  selected 
in  the  presence  of  the  multitude,  or  rather  before  God, 
as  objects  of  his  sovereign  choice;"  and  that  the  "lots" 
were  not  votes  or  ballots  cast  by  the  members  of  the 
church,  but  "the  lots  of  the  two  candidates  " — i.  e.,  the  lots 
which  were  to  choose  between  them,  and  were  probably 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  51 

Acts  xiv.  23  is  to  the  same  effect,  though, 
from  a  mistranslation,  the  force  of  it  is  lost 
upon  the  English  reader.  The  authorized 
version  represents  the  two  apostles,  Barnabas 
and  Paul,  as  ordaining  elders  in  every  church ; 
whereas  the  true  meaning  of  the  word  in  the 
original  is  "to  elect  by  a  show  of  hands" — 
a  fact  now  admitted  by  the  best  expositors.* 
We  must  not  allow  a  faulty  translation  to  rob 
us  of  the  testimony  of  Scripture  to  an  import- 
ant fact — namely,  that  the  elders  of  the  New 

inscribed  with  their  respective  names,"  one  of  which 
was  drawn  under  the  divine  guidance,  thus  showing  that 
Matthias,  whose  alot"  that  was,  was  the  choice  of  God. 
We  may  grant  this  in  reference  to  the  appointment  of 
an  apostle  who  must  have  companied  with  the  eleven 
all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out  among 
them,  beginning  from  the  baptism*  of  John  unto  that 
same  day  that  he  was  taken  up  from  them,  so  that  he 
could  with  them  be  a  direct  witness  of  the  Lord's  res- 
urrection, and  who,  therefore,  can  have  no  official  suc- 
cessors now  living  on  the  earth — we  may  grant  this 
without  weakening  the  argument,  drawn  from  the  other 
facts  quoted  in  this  section,  in  reference  to  the  election  of 
elders  and  deacons,  the  two  permanent  orders  in  the 
Church.  P. 

*  See  Dean  Alford  on  the  passage. 


52      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

Testament  Church  were  appointed  to  office  by 
the  popular  vote. 

The  sixth  chapter  of  Acts  comes  next 
under  consideration.  At  the  period  to  which 
the  narrative  there  recorded  refers  the  dis- 
ciples at  Jerusalem  had  grown  numerous. 
The  Grecians  began  to  complain  against  the 
Hebrews,  how  that  their  widows  were  ne- 
glected in  the  daily  ministrations.  Hitherto 
the  twelve  had  attended  to  the  wants  of  the 
poor,  but  their  hands  were  at  the  same  time 
full  of  other  work,  and  among  such  a  multi- 
tude, it  is  not  surprising  that  some  were 
neglected,  nor  is  it  very  wonderful,  consider- 
ing what  human  nature  is,  that  some  were 
found  to  murmur,  even  when  apostles  man- 
aged the  business.  What  was  now  to  be 
done?  A  division  of  offices  wras  clearly  a 
necessity.  But  were  the  apostles  to  take  it 
on  themselves  to  select  persons  on  whom 
should  devolve  the  duty  of  attending  to  the 
temporal  wants  of  the  community?  Had 
they  done  so,  few  would  dispute  their  right, 
or  venture  to  charge  inspired  men  with  the 
exercise  of  a  despotic  or  unwarranted  author- 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  53 

ity.  But  instead  of  this  they  adopted  a 
course  of  procedure  unaccountable  to  us  on 
any  other  principle  than  that  they  purposely 
managed  the  matter  in  such  a  way  as  would 
guide  the  church  in  the  appointment  of  office- 
bearers when  themselves  would  be  removed, 
and  thus  form  a  precedent  for  future  ages. 
The  apostles  summoned  the  multitude  to- 
gether and  explained  the  case.  They  said 
their  appropriate  business  as  ministers  was 
with  the  word  of  God.  They  said  it  was 
unreasonable  for  them  to  have  to  neglect  the/^^ 
spiritual  province  in  order  to  attend  to  tern-  y7,* 
poral  concerns,  and  they  called  upon  the 
brethren  to  look  out  from  among  themselves 
seven  men  of  good  character,  gifted  with  wis- 
dom and  the  Spirit  of  God,  who  might  be 
appointed  to  take  charge  of  this  secular  busi- 
ness, and  who  would  leave  the  apostles  free  to 
attend  to  duties  peculiarly  their  own — namely, 
prayer  and  the  ministry  of  the  word.  "And 
the  saying  pleased  the  whole  multitude:  and 
they  chose  Stephen,  a  man  full  of  faith  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  Philip,  and  Procho- 
rus,  and  Nicanor,  and  Simon,  and  Parmenas, 

5* 


54      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

and  Nicolas,  a  proselyte  of  Antioch,  whom 
they  set  before  the  apostles ;  and  when  they 
had  prayed  they  faid  their  hands  on  them." 
Acts  vi.  5,  6.  The  seven  men  whom  the 
multitude  chose  on  this  occasion  were  the  first 
deacons.  Though  not  expressly  called  so  in 
the  Scriptures,  yet  they  are  admitted  to  have 
been  such  by  almost  universal  consent.  The 
lowest  office-bearers,  therefore,  in  the  apos- 
tolic Church,  were  chosen  by  the  people. 

Here,  then,  are  three  clear  facts  fully  suf- 
ficient to  be  the  basis  of  a  principle.  The 
first  chapter  of  Acts  supplies  us  with  an 
instance  of  the  assembled  men  and  brethren 
appointing  to  office  one  who  was  both  an 
apostle  and  a  minister.  The  fourteenth  chap- 
ter shows  that  the  elders  of  the  congregation 
were  chosen  by  popular  suffrage.  The  sixth 
chapter  furnishes  an  example  of  the  whole 
multitude  of  the  disciples  choosing  seven  men 
to  be  deacons.  On  these  three  facts,  clear  and 
irresistible,  we  found  the  principle  of  popu- 
lar election.  The  conclusion  that  follows 
from  this  evidence  we  find  it  absolutely  im- 
possible to  evade — namely,  that  in  the  apos- 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  55 

tolic  Church  the  office-bearers  were  chosen  by 
the  people. 


THE    SECOND    PKINCIPLE. 

There  is  a  class  of  office-bearers  very  fre- 
quently mentioned  as  existing  in  the  early 
Church,  and  to  which,  as  yet,  we  have  only 
made  a  slight  allusion.  We  mean  the  elder, 
or  presbyter,  as  he  is  frequently  called.  This 
church-officer  is  often  mentioned  in  the  Acts 
and  Epistles,  but  an  attentive  reader  will  not 
fail  to  remark  that  no  passage  of  Scripture 
ever  speaks  of  him  as  holding  an  office  distinct 
from  the  bishop.  The  same  verse  never  speaks 
of  bishops  and  elders.  When  Paul,  for  ex- 
ample, writes  to  the  Philippian  church  (i.  1), 
he  mentions  the  bishops  and  deacons,  but 
says  nothing  of  elders.  When  James  directs 
the  sick  to  call  for  the  elders  of  the  church 
(v.  14),  he  says  nothing  of  bishops.  If  the 
offices  of  bishop  and  elder  were  quite  distinct 
— if  a  bishop  were  an  office-bearer  bearing 
rule  over  a  number  of  elders — it  does  seem 
strange  that  no  passage  of  Scripture  speaks  at 


56       WHICH    IS   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH  ? 

the  same  time  of  bishops  and  elders.  There 
is  one  supposition,  and  only  one,  that  would 
furnish  a  satisfactory  reason  for  this  fact.  If 
the  two  terms  be  only  different  names  for  the 
same  office,  then  to  speak  of  bishops  and  elders 
would  be  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  language 
— it  would  be  tautology — it  would  be  the 
same  thing  as  to  speak  of  presbyters  and 
elders,  or  of  bishops  and  bishops.  To  sup- 
pose that  the  two  offices  were  identical  ac- 
counts sufficiently  for  the  significant  fact  that 
they  are  never  mentioned  together  in  the  same 
passage  of  the  word  of  God,  for  it  is  plain 
that,  one  of  the  terms  being  adequate  to  indi- 
cate the  office-bearers  intended,  there  was  no 
need  to  introduce  the  other  at  the  same  time. 
Still  there  must  be  something  stronger  than 
a  presumption  to  warrant  us  in  saying  that 
the  two  terms  were  only  different  names  for 
the  same  person.  However  improbable  it 
may  appear,  it  is  still  possible  that  these  two, 
bishop  and  elder,  were  distinct  office-bearers, 
even  though  the  same  passage  never  speaks 
of  them  together.  This  obliges  us  to  consult 
the  Scriptures  further  on  this  question. 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  57 

The  first  passage  that  comes  before  us  is 
Titus  i.  5-7:  "For  this  cause  I  left  thee  in 
Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the 
things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  in 
every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee:  if  any 
be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,  having 
faithful  children,  not  accused  of  riot  or  unruly. 
For  a  bishop  must  be  blameless,  as  the  steward 
of  God;  not  self-willed,  not  soon  angry,  not 
given  to  wine,  no  striker,  not  given  to  filthy 
lucre."  This  passage  strongly  confirms  the 
truth  of  the  supposition  already  made,  that 
the  two  offices  were  identical.  It  appears  that 
Paul  left  Titus  behind  him  in  Crete  to  ordain 
elders  in  every  city.  To  guide  him  in  the 
discharge  of  his  duty,  the  apostle  proceeds  to 
state  the  qualifications  of  an  elder.  No  private 
member  of  the  church  was  eligible  to  that 
office  unless  he  was  a  man  of  blameless  life,  the 
husband  of  one  wife,  and  had  obedient  chil- 
dren ;  "for,"  says  he,  "a  bishop  must  be  blame- 
less, as  the  steward  of  God."  Dr.  King  well 
observes  on  this  passage  "that  the  term  elder, 
used  at  the  commencement,  is  exchanged  for 
the  term  bishop  in  the  conclusion,  while  the 


58      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHUECH? 

same  office-bearer  is  spoken  of.  An  elder  must 
have  such  and  such  qualifications.  Why  ? 
Because  a  bishop  must  be  blameless,  as  the 
steward  of  God.  Does  not  this  identify  the 
elder  and  the  bishop  ?  If  not,  identification 
is  impossible.  Were  it  said  the  lord  mayor 
of  London  must  devote  himself  to  his  duties, 
for  the  chief  magistrate  of  such  a  city  has 
great  responsibilities,  would  not  the  language 
indicate  that  the  lord  mayor  and  the  chief 
magistrate  were  the  same  office-bearer?  Other- 
wise, the  representation  would  be  absurd;  for 
why  should  the  mayor  devote  himself  to  his 
duties  because  some  other  person  had  great 
responsibilities?  Yet  the  mayor  and  chief 
magistrate  are  not  more  indeutified  in  this 
comparison  than  are  the  elder  and  bishop  in 
Paul's  instructions  to  Titus."*  It  must  be 
evident  to  every  unprejudiced  man  that  the 
apostle  would  never  state  as  a  reason  for  or- 
daining none  but  men  of  good  moral  charac- 
ter to  the  office  of  the  eldership,  that  a  bishop 
must  be  blameless,  if  he  did  not  understand 

*  Dr.   King's   Exposition    and    Defence,   pp.   176-7. 
Edinr.,  1853. 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  59 

that  elder  and  bishop  were  only  different 
designations  for  the  same  office.  On  any 
other  supposition  the  language  of  the  apostle 
would  be  without  coherence  and  without 
sense. 

Again,  we  turn  to  2  John  i.,  and  we  find 
that  the  apostle  John  styles  himself  an  elder:* 
"The  elder  unto  the  elect  lady  and  her  chil- 
dren, whom  I  love  in  the  truth."  Next 
comes  up  1  Peter  v.  1,  and  we  find  there  that 
the  apostle  Peter  calls  himself  an  elder:  "The 
elders  which  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am. 
also  an  elder,  and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings 
of  Christ."  That  John  and  Peter  were  both 
bishops  all  admit,  but  these  passages  show 
that  they  were  elders  also.  This,  however, 
brings  us  but  a  step  to  the  conclusion.  It  may 
be  true  that  every  general  is  an  officer,  but  it 
does  not  follow  from  this  that  every  officer 
is  a  general.  A  bishop  may,  like  John  and 
Peter,  be  an  elder,  but  it  does  not  necessarily 
follow  that  an  elder  is  a  bishop.  This  may 
be  true,  but  we  require  more  proof  before  we 
can  reach  such  a  conclusion.  This  we  have 
*  Presbuteros,  presbyter,  elder. 


60      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHUKCH  ? 

as  fully  as  can  be  desired  in  Acts  xx.  17-28. 
We  read  there  how  Paul  sent  for  the  elders 
of  the  church  at  Ephesus  to  meet  him  at 
Miletus.  He  spoke  of  his  ministry  in  their 
city,  the  great  theme  of  his  preaching  being 
repentance  toward  God  and  faith  toward  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  He  foretold  the  afflictions 
awaiting  him  at  Jerusalem  and  elsewhere,  and 
he  saddened  their  hearts  by  saying  to  them 
that  they  should  see  his  face  no  more.  And 
he  warned  them  to  take  heed  to  themselves 
and  to  "the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
had  made  them  overseers" — that  is,  bishops,  as 
the  word  is  elsewhere  rendered.  Every  reader 
acquainted  with  the  original  is  aware  that  the 
word  translated  overseers,  in  Acts  xx.  28,  is 
the  very  same  as  that  translated  bishops  in 
Phil.  i.  1,  so  that  we  have  here  the  evidence 
of  inspiration  that  the  elders  of  Ephesus  were 
bishops  by  appointment  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  makes  the  chain  of  reasoning  strong  and 
conclusive.  Bishops,  as  we  have  seen,  were 
elders,  and  elders,  as  we  now  see,  were 
bishops.  This  conducts  us  to  a  second  princi- 
ple—namely, that  in  the  apostolic  church 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  61 

THE   OFFICES   OF   BISHOP  AND|   ELDER  WERE 

identical.  An  elder  was  not  inferior  to  a 
bishop,  nor  was  a  bishop  superior  to  an  elder. 
It  was  the  same  office-bearer  who  was  known 
by  these  different  names. 

We  are  not  disposed  to  attach  much  value 
to  the  opinion  of  such  a  man  as  Edward  Gib- 
bon on  any  question  of  doctrine  or  morality, 
but  that  distinguished  historian  was  compe- 
tent to  grapple  with  a  matter  of  fact,  and 
may  be  heard  as  one  who,  from  being  un- 
prejudiced in  favor  of  any  religious  system 
whatever,  was  in  a  position  to  judge  impar- 
tially in  a  case  of  this  kind.  Speaking  of 
the  government  and  administration  of  the 
Church  prior  to  the  Council  of  Nice,  he 
says,  "The  public  functions  of  religion  were 
solely  entrusted  to  the  established  minis- 
ters of  the  Church,  bishops  and  the  presby- 
ters, two  appellations  which,  in  their  first  origin, 
appear  to  have  distinguished  the  same  office  and 
the  same  order  of  persons.  The  name  of  pres- 
byter was  expressive  of  their  age,  or  rather  of 
their  gravity  and  wisdom.  The  title  of  bishop 
denoted  their  inspection  over  the  faith  and 
6 


62      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

manners  of  the  Christians  who  were  commit- 
ted to  their  pastoral  care."  * 


THE  THIED  PEINCIPLE. 

Let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  we  have  now 
ascertained  that  presbyter  and  bishop  were, 
in  their  origin,  only  different  names  for  the 
same  ecclesiastical  office-bearer.  Enough  has 
been  found  in  the  Scriptures  to  satisfy  us  that 
bishops  were  elders,  and  that  elders  were 
bishops,  in  the  apostolic  Church.  We  are 
warranted,  therefore,  to  regard  this  fact  as 
fully  substantiated,  while  we  proceed  to  the 
discovery  of  a  third  principle. 

The  fourteenth  chapter  of  Acts  describes  a 
missionary  journey  of  Paul  and  Barnabas. 
There  was  an  attempt  made  to  stone  them  at 
Iconium,  but  they  fled  to  Lystra  and  Derbe. 
When  Paul  made  a  cripple  at  Lycaonia  leap 
and  walk,  the  priest  of  Jupiter  brought  oxen 
and  garlands  to  the  gates,  and  it  was  with 
some  difficulty  that  the  people,  in  their  pagan 

*  History  of  the  Decline  and  Fall,  chap.  xv. 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  63 

ignorance,  were  restrained  from  paying  divine 
honors  to  the  two  preachers.  But  so  fickle 
were  the  sentiments  of  the  multitude  that 
shortly  afterward  the  great  apostle  was  stoned 
nearly  to  death  at  the  very  place  where 
he  had  almost  been  worshiped  as  a  god. 
Barely  escaping  with  his  life,  Paul  and  his 
companion  revisited  Derbe  and  Lystra,  and 
Iconium  and  Antioch,  preaching  the  gospel, 
confirming  the  souls  of  the  disciples  and  ex- 
horting them  to  continue  in  the  faith.  And 
the  sacred  historian,  in  the  narrative  of  this 
evangelistic  tour,  informs  us  of  this  important 
fact,  that  they  appointed  elders  in  every  church. 
His  words  are:  "And  when  they  had  chosen 
for  them  by  suffrage  elders  in  every  church, 
and  had  prayed  with  fasting,  they  commended 
them  to  the  Lord,  on  whom  they  believed." 
Acts  xiv.  23.  We  have  seen  already  that  a 
Church  in  Scripture  signifies  any  assembly  of 
Christians,  however  great  or  small.  It  was 
the  primitive  practice  to  call  the  believers 
residing  in  any  town,  however  large,  or  in 
any  village,  however  small,  the  church  of 
that  place.     Many  of  these  societies,  collected 


64      WHICH   IS   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH? 

from  among  the  heathen  by  these  pioneers  of 
Christianity,  organized  in  the  face  of  difficulty, 
and  thinned  by  intimidation,  must  have  been 
weak  in  point  of  numbers.  Still,  the  two 
apostles  were  not  satisfied  with  appointing  one 
elder  or  bishop  in  each  society,  however  small 
in  numbers;  but  as  we  are  taught  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  they  appointed  elders  in  every 
church.  If,  then,  the  evangelist  Luke, 
speaking  as  he  was  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
is  a  true  witness,  there  were  more  elders  than 
one  in  each  congregation  of  the  apostolic 
Church.  How  many,  whether  two,  three  or 
more,  we  are  not  informed,  but  that  in  each 
church  there  was  a  plurality  of  elders  is 
clear. 

We  proceed  once  more  to  the  twentieth 
chapter  of  Acts.  Here  Paul  is  represented 
as  traveling  from  Greece  on  his  way  to  Jeru- 
salem. Having  stopped  a  week  at  Troas,  he 
went  upon  his  onward  way,  sometimes  by  sea 
and  sometimes  by  land,  striving  to  reach  the 
Jewish  capital  before  Pentecost.  Having 
touched  at  Miletus,  a  seaport  of  Ionia,  thirty- 
six  miles  south  of  Ephesus,  he  sent  a  message 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  65 

to  that  city  for  the  elders  of  the  Church.  The 
words  of  inspiration  are:  "And  from  Miletus 
he  sent  to  Ephesus,  and  called  the  elders  of 
the  Church. "  Acts  xx.  17.  From  this  it 
appears  the  church  of  Ephesus  had  not  only 
one  elder,  but  more,  and  we  have  already  seen 
that  in  verse  28  its  elders  are  called  bishops. 
Unless  language  mean  nothing,  and  the  state- 
ments of  Scripture  be  as  unintelligible  as  the 
leaves  of  the  Sibyl,  there  was  a  plurality  of 
elders  or  bishops  in  the  church  at  Ephesus. 

Still  further.  Philippi  was  a  city  on  the 
confines  of  ancient  Thrace.  To  the  classic 
reader  it  is  known  as  the  place  where  Augus- 
tus and  Anthony  wrested  from  Brutus  and 
Cassius,  in  a  pitched  battle,  the  empire  of  the 
world ;  to  the  Christian  it  is  remarkable  as 
being  the  first  spot  in  Europe  where  the  ban- 
ner of  the  Cross  was  unfurled  and  sinners 
listened  to  the  gospel  of  Jesus.  There  the 
heart  of  the  seller  of  purple  was  opened  to 
attend  to  the  things  that  were  spoken  of  Paul. 
It  was  there  that,  for  casting  the  spirit  of 
divination  out  of  a  soothsayer,  Paul  and  Silas 
were  beaten  by  the  magistrates  and  had  their 
6* 


66      WHICH    IS   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH  ? 

feet  made  fast  in  the  stocks.  It  was  there,  at 
the  dead  hour  of  night,  when  the  foundations 
of  the  prison  shook,  and  every  door  in  the 
jail  flew  open,  and  every  man's  chains  fell 
from  his  arms,  that  the  keeper  of  the  prison 
asked  two  of  his  prisoners  the  most  important 
question  that  was  ever  put  by  a  sinner  to  a 
minister  of  God:  "Sirs,  what  must  I  do  to 
be  saved?"  In  this  town  of  Philippi  a  church 
was  organized,  though  in  the  face  of  determin- 
ed opposition,  and  some  ten  or  twelve  years 
after  Paul's  first  visit  he  thought  it  right  to 
address  to  this  church  a  letter.  This  letter 
has  been  preserved.  It  finds  a  place  in  the 
word  of  God.  It  is  that  known  to  us  as  the 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians.  One  has  some 
curiosity  to  read  what  an  apostle  thought  it 
good  to  write  to  a  church  at  the  head  of 
whose  roll  of  members  stood  the  names  of 
Lydia  and  the  jailer.  As  might  be  expected, 
it  is  full  to  the  brim  of  precious  and  consoling 
truths;  but,  what  is  more  to  our  purpose  at 
present,  we  find  these  words  in  the  first  verse 
of  the  first  chapter:  "Paul  and  Timotheus, 
the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints 


APOSTOLIC    PRINCIPLES.  67 

in  Jesus  Christ  which  are  at  Philippi,  with 
the  bishops  and  deacons."  Philippi  was,  no 
doubt,  a  considerable  town,  but,  in  point  of 
population  and  importance,  it  was  no  more  to 
such  a  city  as  Dublin  or  Liverpool  than  a 
parish  is  to  a  diocese.  Yet  in  modern  times 
one  bishop  is  thought  sufficient  even  for  Lon- 
don, where  professing  Christians  are  numbered 
by  millions,  whereas  a  single  Christian  con- 
gregation gathered  out  of  a  heathen  popula- 
tion, possessing  ecclesiastical  existence  only 
for  ten  or  twelve  years,  exposed  to  contumely 
and  suffering  for  Christ's  sake,  and  located  in 
a  contemptible  town  on  the  outskirts  of  Mace- 
donia, had  a  plurality  of  bishops.  Paul,  in 
writing  to  that  Church,  addresses  his  Epistle 
to  the  bishops  and  deacons. 

Let  the  candid  reader  glance  again  at  the 
ground  over  which  we  have  passed.  He  sees 
that  Paul,  in  writing  his  Epistle  to  the  church 
at  Philippi,  addressed  it  to  the  bishops.  He 
sees  there  were  elders  in  the  church  at  Ephesus 
when  Paul  sent  for  them  to  Miletus.  He 
finds  it  stated  that  Barnabas  and  Paul  ordained 
elders  in  every  church.     How  is  it  possible  for 


68       WHICH    IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

him  to  resist  the  conclusion  that  in  apostolic 
days  there  was  in  each  congregation  a  plural- 
ity of  elders,  or,  what  we  have  seen  amounts 
to  the  same  thing,  a  plurality  of  bishops? 
This  leads  us  to  the  third  principle  of  apostolic 
government — that  in  each  church  there 

WAS  A  PLURALITY  OF  ELDERS. 


THE   FOURTH  PRINCIPLE. 

Ordination  is  the  solemn  designation  of  a 
person  to  ecclesiastical  office  with  the  laying 
on  of  hands.  Every  permanent  office-bearer 
in  the  Church,  whether  bishop  or  deacon,  was 
set  apart  solemnly  to  his  office  by  the  act  of 
ordination.  In  its  outward  form  it  consisted 
of  three  things — fasting,  prayer  and  imposi- 
tion of  hands.  The  imposition  of  hands  was 
used  when  spiritual  gifts  were  conferred  (Acts 
viii.  17;  xix.  6),  and  it  wras  also  practiced 
when  the  sick  were  miraculously  healed. 
Mark  xxvi.  18;  Acts  ix.  17;  xxviii.  8.  But, 
distinct  from  all  such  cases,  the  laying  on 
of  hands  was  used  at  the  ordination  of  Church 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  69 

office-bearers,  and  when  no  extraordinary  or 
miraculous  gift  was  bestowed.  Acts  vi.  6  :  xiii. 
1-3;  and  1  Tim.  iv.  14;  v.  22.  The  with- 
drawment  of  miraculous  powers  cannot  there- 
fore be  any  valid  reason  why,  at  ordinations, 
the  practice  should  be  set  aside;  the  imposi- 
tion of  hands  in  such  cases  never  was  the 
medium  of  imparting  the  Holy  Ghost,  but 
only  the  form  of  investing  with  ecclesiastical 
office. 

The  great  question  regarding  ordination  is 
whether  it  is  the  act  of  one  individual  or  more, 
of  one  elder  or  many  elders,  of  a  bishop  or  a 
presbytery.  That  the  Lord  Jesus  may  give 
a  special  call  to  any  laborer,  and  send  him  to 
work  in  his  vineyard,  none  disputes.  There 
can  be  very  little  doubt  also  that  if  an  in- 
spired apostle  were  still  upon  the  earth,  he 
would  have  the  right  to  ordain  alone,  if  he 
thought  it  right  to  do  so.  Nay,  if  some  mod- 
ern evangelist  could  show,  as  Titus  could,  that 
an  apostle  had  left  him  behind  for  this  special 
purpose,  he,  too,  in  virtue  of  the  right  con- 
ferred upon  him  by  a  higher  power,  would 
have  the  privilege  of  ordaining.    Titus  i.  5. 


70       WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHUKCH? 

Any  one,  therefore,  claiming  the  right  of 
doing  all  that  an  evangelist  did,  would  require 
to  show  that,  if  not  an  apostle,  he  possesses, 
like  Titus,  the  authority  delegated  to  him  by 
an  apostle.  But  here  every  ruler  in  every 
Church  must  fail.  It  remains,  therefore,  that 
we  examine  the  Scriptures  to  discover  who  it 
was  that  in  the  absence  of  apostles,  or  those 
delegated  by  apostles,  had  the  privilege  of 
solemnly  setting  apart  others  to  ecclesiastical 
office,  and  especially  to  ascertain  if  this  power 
was  lodged  in  one  individual  or  in  more. 

First,  we  turn  to  1  Tim.  iv.  14.  We  have 
there  the  ordination  of  Timothy.  The  apostle 
exhorts  his  son  in  the  faith  to  employ  to  good 
purpose  the  gift  of  the  ministry  that  had  been 
conferred  upon  him.  He  intimates  that  this 
gift  had  been  given  by  prophecy — that  is,  in 
consequence  of  certain  intimations  of  -the 
prophets,  who  were  numerous  in  that  age  of 
spiritual  gifts,  marking  him  out  as  one  who 
would  be  an  eminent  minister.  He  adds  that 
the  gift  was  conferred  with  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  presbytery — that  is,  by  the  pres- 
byters or  elders  in  their  collective  capacity. 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  71 

The  words  of  the  apostle  are:  "Neglect  not 
the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee 
by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the 

HANDS  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY."      These  WOrds 

are  decisive  as  to  the  parties  with  whom  the 
power  of  ordination  is  lodged. 

Again,  we  turn  to  Acts  xiii.  1-3.  It  appears 
that  in  the  church  of  Antioch  there  were 
certain  prophets  and  teachers  whose  names 
are  there  recorded.  They  ministered  to  the 
Lord  and  fasted ;  and  while  thus  employed, 
it  was  intimated  to  them  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
that  they  should  separate  Barnabas  and  Saul 
for  missionary  work  among  the  Gentiles. 
Both  had  been  preachers  of  the  gospel  pre- 
viously, but  now  they  were  to  enter  on  a  new 
sphere,  and  engage  in  a  new  department  of 
the  work.  It  was  right,  therefore,  that  the 
prophets  and  teachers  should  solemnly  set 
apart  the  two  brethren  to  the  missionary  work 
by  the  act  of  ordination.  We  read,  accord- 
ingly, in  verse  3,  that  "when  they  had  fasted 
and  prayed,  and  laid  their  hands  on  them,  they 
sent  them  away."  The  act  of  ordination  was 
here  evidently  not  the  work  of  one  teacher, 


72      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHUKCH  ? 

but  of  several.  A  plurality  took  part  in 
it. 

Another  instance  of  plurality  of  Church 
rulers  taking  part  in  this  rite  is  recorded  in 
Acts  vi.  6.  We  have  there  the  ordination  of 
the  deacons.  The  church  at  Jerusalem  chose 
seven  men  to  attend  to  the  necessities  of  the 
poor,  "whom  they  set  before  the  apostles:  and 
when  they  had  prayed,  they  laid  their  hands 
upon  them."  This  is  particularly  valuable, 
as  it  proves  that  when  it  was  convenient  or 
practicable  for  a  plurality  of  rulers  to  take 
part  in  the  act  of  ordination,  the  apostles 
themselves  preferred  that  course. 

Glance  again  at  the  ground  over  which  we 
have  now  passed.  It  was  the  practice  of  an 
apostle,  or  one  directly  appointed  by  an  apos- 
tle for  this  specific  purpose,  to  perform  alone 
the  act  of  ordination.  But  they  did  not 
ordain  singly  where  it  was  possible  for  them 
to  associate.  "Where  a  plurality  could  be  had 
conveniently,  as  in  the  case  of  the  deacons,  it 
was  common  for  more  than  one  to  take  part 
in  the  ceremony.  In  the  absence  of  apostles 
we  have  seen,  in  the  case  of  Saul  and  Barna- 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  73 

bas,  ordination  was  the  act  of  certain  prophets 
and  teachers,  and  in  the  case  of  Timothy  it 
was  the  act  of  the  presbytery.  This  conducts 
us  to  our  fourth  principle — namely,  that  IN 

THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH  ORDINATION  WAS 
THE  ACT  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY,  of  a  plural- 
ity of  elders. 


THE  FIFTH  PRINCIPLE. 

The  fifteenth  chapter  of  Acts  is  much  too 
long  to  be  here  transcribed,  but  before  the 
reader  proceeds  farther  let  him  open  the  Bible 
and  read  that  chapter  carefully  from  the  com- 
mencement to  the  close.  If  he  is  really  in 
search  of  truth,  and  disposed  to  receive  it  in 
its  simplicity,  the  perusal  of  that  chapter 
will  satisfy  him  that  the  following  facts  are 
there  embodied : 

It  appears  that  certain  men  came  down 
from  Judea  to  Antioch,  and  taught  the  church 
there  that  circumcision  is  necessary  to  salva- 
tion. Paul  and  Barnabas  set  themselves  to 
oppose  these  teachers,  but  in  vain.  It  was 
then  agreed  that  certain  of  the  church  of 
7 


74       WHICH  IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHUECH? 

Antioch,  including  in  their  number  Barnabas 
and  Paul,  should  go  up  to  Jerusalem  and  lay 
the  case  before  the  apostles  and  elders.  When 
they  reached  Jerusalem — at  that  time  the 
metropolis  of  Christianity — the  apostles  and 
elders  came  together  to  consider  the  question. 
At  first  there  was  in  the  assembly  consider- 
able difference  of  opinion.  Peter  at  last  rose 
to  speak.  He  reminded  them  how  God  had 
honored  him  in  making  him  the  instrument 
of  first  preaching  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles, 
and  how  it  had  pleased  God,  without  respect 
of  persons,  to  bestow  the  Holy  Ghost  upon 
them  as  well  as  upon  Jewish  believers.  He 
argues,  therefore,  that  to  make  circumcision 
necessary  to  salvation — to  bind  a  yoke  upon 
the  Gentiles  which  even  the  Jews  were  not 
able  to  bear — would  be  to  tempt  God;  and  he 
closes  by  enunciating  the  great  truth  that 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  both  alike,  obtain  salva- 
tion through  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  Barnabas  and  Paul  followed,  declar- 
ing that  by  them,  too,  God  had  wrought 
among  the  Gentiles  miracles  and  wonders. 
James  next  delivered  his  opinion.  He  showed 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  75 

that  the  truth  declared  by  Peter — namely, 
that  God  had  taken  out  of  the  Gentiles  a 
people  for  his  name — was  the  subject  of  ancient 
prophecy.  He  quotes  from  the  prophet  Amos 
to  show  how  God  had  promised  to  build  the 
tabernacle  of  David,  which  had  fallen  into 
ruins,  that  the  residue  of  men  and  the  Gen- 
tiles called  by  his  name  should  seek  after  the 
Lord.  He  ends  by  declaring  his  judgment  to 
be  that  the  Gentiles  already  turned  to  the 
Lord  should  not  be  troubled  with  any  un- 
necessary burden,  but  that  they  should  be 
directed  to  abstain  from  pollutions  of  idols, 
and  from  fornication,  and  from  things  stran- 
gled, and  from  blood. 

The  opinion  of  James  was  approved  by  the 
assembly.  The  apostles  and  elders,  with  the 
whole  Church,  agreed  to  send  Judas  and 
Silas  down  to  Antioch,  with  Barnabas  and 
Paul,  to  announce  the  result.  The  decision 
of  the  meeting  was  embodied  in  letters  which 
ran  in  the  name  of  the  apostles,  elders  and 
brethren,  and  were  addressed  to  the  Gentile 
Christians  in  Antioch,  Syria  and  Cilicia. 

The  epistle  charged  those  who  taught  that 


76      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

circumcision  was  necessary  to  salvation  with 
troubling  the  brethren  and  subverting  their 
souls;  denied  that  they  had  authority  from 
the  apostles  and  elders  so  to  teach;  mentioned 
that  Judas  and  Silas  were  empowered,  along 
with  Barnabas  and  Paul — men  who  hazarded 
their  lives  for  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus — 
to  declare  verbally  the  decision  of  the  assem- 
bly; and  stated  that  it  seemed  good  to  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  to  them  to  impose  upon  the 
Gentile  converts  no  burden  except  abstinence 
from  meats  offered  to  idols,  from  blood,  from 
things  strangled  and  from  fornication. 

Such  was  the  substance  of  the  letter  that 
was  carried  down  to  Antioch  by  the  deputies 
from  the  assembly  at  Jerusalem.  The  mul- 
titude gathered  to  hear  it;  it  was  delivered 
and  read,  and  the  people  rejoiced  for  the  con- 
solation. Judas  and  Silas  added  their  exhor- 
tations, and  the  brethren  were  confirmed  in 
the  faith. 

Shortly  afterward,  Paul,  having  had  some 
difference  with  Barnabas,  chose  Silas  as  his 
fellow-traveler,  and  set  out  on  another  mis- 
sionary journey,  the  object  of  which  was  to 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  77 

visit  the  converts  in  every  city  where  bu  had 
preached  the  word  of  God,  and  see  how  they 
did.  Commended  by  the  brethren  to  the  grace 
of  God,  Paul  and  Silas  departed  from  Antioch, 
and  went  through  Syria  and  Cilicia  confirm- 
ing the  churches.  Derbe  and  Lystra  and 
other  cities  of  Asia  Minor  were  visited  on 
this  occasion ;  and  as  they  went  through  the 
cities,  they  delivered  to  them  the  decrees  for 
to  keep  which  were  ordained  of  the  apostles 
and  elders  that  were  at  Jerusalem.  Acts 
xvi.  4. 

Every  candid  man  must  admit  that  this  is  a 
fair  representation  of  all  the  facts  bearing  on 
the  subject,  as  put  before  us  in  the  fifteenth 
and  sixteenth  chapters  of  the  Acts.  Let  it  be 
remarked  that  in  the  simple  narrative  the 
following  facts  stand  noticeably  out:  1.  That 
Barnabas  and  Paul  had  a  dispute  about  cir- 
cumcision with  certain  false  teachers  who  came 
down  from  Judea.  2.  This  dispute  was  not 
settled  in  the  church  of  Antioch,  where  it 
originated.  3.  The  matter  was  referred  to  an 
external  ecclesiastical  assembly  consisting  of 
the  apostles  and  elders  at  Jerusalem.    4.  This 

V* 


78      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

assembly  met  publicly  to  deliberate  on  the 
question.  5.  They  pronounced  a  decision. 
6.  To  this  decision  the  church  of  Antioch  and 
the  churches  of  Syria  and  Cilicia  yielded  sub- 
mission. 

These  facts  are  on  the  face  of  the  narrative, 
and  cannot  be  denied.  That  they  were  per- 
mitted to  take  place,  and  that  a  record  of 
them  is  inserted  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  seems 
strange  if  these  things  did  not  happen  for  an 
example  to  us.  Were  it  enough  for  the  church 
of  Antioch  to  be  made  certain  of  the  mind  of 
God  upon  the  point  in  dispute,  Paul,  who  was 
present,  could  have  declared  this  with  infalli- 
ble accuracy,  for  he  was  one  who  not  only 
spake  as  he  was  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
but  who  often  decided  matters  equally  im- 
portant by  a  word  from  his  lips  or  a  stroke 
of  his  pen.  A  single  sentence  from  the  very 
apostle  who  was  then  at  Antioch  is  admitted 
by  the  Church  of  God  to  be  decisive  on  any 
point  of  Christian  faith  or  Christian  duty;  so 
that  if  an  infallible  decision  was  the  only 
thing  required,  one  does  not  see  why  the  mat- 
ter was  ever  carried  farther.     When  the  case 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  79 

did  come  up  to  Jerusalem,  had  the  appeal 
been  to  inspiration  only,  one  does  not  see 
what  business  the  elders  had  to  meet  with  the 
apostles  to  consider  the  matter;  surely  the 
apostles  were  competent  to  declare  the  mind 
of  God  without  the  aid  of  uninspired  men. 
If  nothing  was  necessary  but  for  the  apostles 
to  pronounce  an  infallible  deliverance,  why  was 
there  such  a  thing  as  disputing  in  the  assem- 
bly, or  even  the  semblance  of  deliberation,  or 
why  should  one  apostle  after  another  state  his 
opinion?  We  would  suppose  the  deliverance 
of  a  single  inspired  man  quite  sufficient.  If 
the  disputing  that  occurred  in  the  assembly 
was  only  among  the  elders,  the  elders  must 
have  been  very  silly  to  dispute  about  a  matter 
that  inspiration  was  to  settle,  and  with  which 
they,  as  uninspired  men,  could  have  nothing 
to  do  but  to  listen  to  the  voice  of  God;  and 
why  did  the  apostles  permit  them  to  dispute, 
when  a  word  from  the  infallible  expounders 
of  the  divine  will  could  have  decided  the 
question?  And  when  the  decree  went  forth, 
why  was  it  in  the  name  of  the  apostles  and 
elders  that  were  at  Jerusalem?     There  is  one 


80      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

way  of  accounting  for  this  satisfactorily,  and 
only  one,  so  far  as  we  can  see.  These  events 
were  permitted  to  take  place  and  are  re- 
corded for  our  guidance  under  all  similar  cir- 
cumstances. Should  any  difference  arise  which 
cannot  be  settled  within  the  limits  of  the  con- 
gregation where  it  occurs,  it  is  to  be  referred 
for  settlement  to  the  rulers  of  the  church  in 
their  assembled  capacity.  If  the  apostles  were 
alive  upon  the  earth  to  meet  with  the  elders, 
and  by  aid  of  their  inspiration  to  guide  them 
to  an  unerring  decision,  and  were  we  to  refer 
our  differences  to  such  an  assembly,  this  would 
be  literal  obedience  to  the  example  put  before 
us  in  the  divine  word.  But  when,  in  their 
personal  absence,  we  refer  our  differences  to 
the  assembly  of  the  elders,  and  when  the 
elders,  guided  by  the  inspired  writings  of  the 
apostles  as  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  pro- 
nounce a  deliverance  on  the  question,  and 
when  to  such  deliverance  we  yield  submission 
in  the  Lord,  this  is  more  than  acting  up  to 
the  spirit,  it  is  acting  up  to  everything  but  the 
letter,  of  apostolic  example. 

We  are  thus  conducted  to  the  twofold  fact 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  81 

that  in  the  apostolic  Church  there  existed 
the  privilege  of  referring  disputed  matters  to 
the  decision  of  an  assembly  of  living  men 
external  to  the  congregation  where  such  dis- 
pute originated,  and  composed  of  the  rulers 
of  the  church;  and  that  this  ecclesiastical 
assembly,  in  the  absence  of  the  apostles  con- 
sisting simply  of  the  rulers  of  the  church,  has 
a  right  to  meet,  to  deliberate,  to  decide  and 
to  demand  obedience  to  its  decisions  in  the 
Lord.  This  twofold  principle  we  designate 
the  privilege  of  appeal  to  the  assembly  of  elders, 
and  the  right  of  government  exercised  by  them 
in  their  associate  capacity. 

It  would  scarcely  be  necessary  to  say  a 
word  on  the  presence  of  the  brethren  in  the 
assembly  at  Jerusalem,  were  it  not  that  some 
parties  have  made  this  fact  the  foundation  for 
special  cavil.  As  they  are  mentioned  sepa- 
rately from  the  apostles  and  elders,  it  seems 
to  us  clear  that  the  "brethren"  must  have 
been  the  non-official  members  of  the  church, 
or,  as  in  modern  times  they  would  be  called, 
the  laity.  That  they  were  present  at  the  meet- 
ing, that  they  concurred  in  the  decision  and 


82      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHUKCH  ? 

that  the  letter  sent  down  to  Antioch  was  writ- 
ten in  their  name,  as  well  as  in  that  of  the 
apostles  and  elders,  are,  in  our  opinion,  unde- 
niable facts — patent  on  the  face  of  the  narra- 
tive. But  we  have  not  all  the  facts  of  the 
case  before  us,  except  we  observe,  first,  that 
the  original  reference  from  Antioch  was  not 
to  the  brethren,  but  to  the  apostles  and  elders 
(verse  2) ;  second,  that  it  is  not  said  that  the 
brethren  assembled  to  deliberate  on  the  ques- 
tion, but  that  "the  apostles  and  elders  came 
together  for  to  consider  of  this  matter"  (verse 
6) ;  third,  that  we  do  not  read  of  any  of  the 
brethren  speaking  on  the  subject  submitted, 
but  that  they  "kept  silence "  while  others 
spoke  (verse  12) ;  fourth,  that  the  decrees  are 
not  said  to  be  ordained  of  the  brethren,  but 
"  of  the  apostles  and  elders  which  were  at 
Jerusalem."  Acts  xvi.  4.  The  unprejudiced 
inquirer  will  observe  that  the  private  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  here  designated  the  "breth- 
ren," did  not  ordain  the  decrees,  nor  speak  in 
the  meeting,  nor  assemble  to  deliberate,  nor 
was  it  to  them  that  the  appeal  from  Antioch 
was  brought.      He  will,  on  the  other  hand, 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  83 

remark  that  they  were  present  in  the  assembly, 
that  they  concurred  in  the  finding,  and  that, 
as  it  was  important  to  show  that  all  the  Chris- 
tians of  Jerusalem  were  unanimous  on  the 
subject,  the  letter  embodying  the  decision  was 
written  in  their  name  as  well  as  in  that  of 
the  apostles  and  elders.  From  motives  of 
courtesy,  and  for  'the  purpose  of  Christian 
salutation,  Silvanus  and  Timotheus  are  repre- 
sented as  uniting  with  Paul  in  his  First 
Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  but  this  does  not 
imply  that  Silvanus  and  Timotheus  were  in- 
spired men,  much  less  that  they  were  con- 
joined in  the  authorship  of  the  letter.  And, 
in  the  same  way,  the  letter  addressed  to  the 
Gentiles  of  Antioch,  Syria  and  Cilicia  was 
the  letter  of  the  apostles  and  elders,  the 
name  of  the  brethren  being  added  to  show, 
not  that  they  took  part  in  the  composition, 
but  that  they  concurred  in  the  sentiments. 
Persons,  therefore,  who  desire  to  convince  us 
that  private  Christians  in  the  apostolic  Church 
were  not  only  present  as  auditors  at  assemblies 
of  church  rulers,  but  also  shared  in  the  de- 
liberations, and   acted   as  constituent   mem- 


84       WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

bers  of  ecclesiastical  courts,  would  require 
to  produce  something  much  more  explicit  on 
the  subject  than  the  15th  chapter  of  Acts. 
To  us  it  seems  clear  that  the  apostles  and 
elders  assembled,  deliberated  and  decreed; 
the  brethren  were  present,  listened  and  con- 
curred. The  apostles  and  elders  were,  as  we 
would  say,  members  of  court;  the  brethren 
were  only  auditors  who  gave  their  assent  to 
the  decision  of  the  rulers. 

Our    fifth    principle,    therefore,    may    be 
summed  up  in  these  terms:   the  privilege 

OF  APPEAL  TO  THE  ASSEMBLY  OF  ELDERS, 
AND  THE  RIGHT  OF  GOVERNMENT  EXERCISED 
BY  THEM  IN  THEIR  CORPORATE  CHARACTER. 


THE    SIXTH    PKINCIPLE. 

It  is  a  distinctive  feature  of  the  apostolic 
government  that  church  rulers  did  not  render 
spiritual  obedience  to  any  temporal  potentate 
or  to  any  ecclesiastical  chief.  Paul  seldom 
commences  any  of  his  Epistles  without  re- 


APOSTOLIC    PRINCIPLES.  85 

minding  his  readers  that  he  held  his  apostle- 
ship  by  the  will  of  God,  not  by  the  favor 
of  man.  Take,  as  an  example,  Gal.  i.  1  : 
"Paul  an  apostle  (not  of  men,  neither  by  man, 
but  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  God  the  Father  who 
raised  him  from  the  dead),"  etc.  In  the  pic- 
ture of  apostolic  times  presented  in  the  New 
Testament,  we  can  detect  no  instance  of  the 
Church  acknowledging  the  spiritual  dominion 
of  any  earthly  monarch,  or  consenting  to  sur- 
render a  portion  of  its  religious  liberty  for 
any  temporal  advantage  whatever.  We  find 
no  provision  made  in  the  gospel  for  the 
supremacy  of  a  Christian,  much  less  of  a 
heathen,  king  in  the  things  of  God.  The 
law  of  Scripture  is  express :  "  Render  to  Caesar 
the  things  that  are  Caesar's,  and  to  God  the 
things  that  are  God's."  Mark  xii.  17.  In  all 
temporal  matters  the  members  of  the  apos- 
tolic Church  regarded  it  their  duty  to  yield 
obedience  to  the  civil  rulers  of  the  country  in 
which  they  lived ;  in  all  spiritual  matters 
they  did  homage  to  a  higher  power.  In  tem- 
poral matters  an  apostle  bowed  to  the  laws 
of  the  land  as  administered  by  the  magistrate 
8 


86       WHICH    IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

of  a  village ;   in   spiritual  matters  he  would 
not  bow  to  Caesar  on  his  throne. 

It  does  not  alter  the  case  to  say  that  we 
look  in  vain  for  such  an  example  in  the 
Scriptures,  owing  to  the  fact  that  in  the 
primitive  age  no  temporal  prince  was  made 
a  convert  to  Christianity,  and  therefore  none 
was  in  circumstances  to  dispense  ecclesiastical 
patronage  and  serve  as  the  depositary  of 
spiritual  power.  But  God  is  not  limited  by 
want  of  instruments.  The  same  grace  that 
subdued  Saul  of  Tarsus,  at  a  time  when  he 
was  breathing  out  slaughter  against  the  saints 
of  the  Lord,  could  have  converted  Pilate,  or 
Agrippa,  or  Caesar  at  Rome.  Had  the  ex- 
ample been  useful,  the  necessary  means  of 
supplying  the  example  would  not  have  been 
lacking  to  God.  The  very  fact  that  in  apos- 
tolic days  God  did  not  take  some  heathen 
prince  and  make  a  Christian  of  him,  in  order 
that  he  might  fill  the  office  of  temporal  head 
of  the  Church  on  earth,  is  in  itself  an  instruc- 
tive fact,  fraught  with  a  moral.  And  let  it 
be  remarked  that  the  Scriptures  make  no  pro- 
vision for  such  an  occurrence  in  after  times. 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  87 

They  contain  no  principle  authorizing  the 
prince  either  to  claim  or  exercise  authority  in 
ecclesiastical  matters,  when,  in  the  course  of 
ages,  a  Christian  potentate  would  appear.  If 
there  be  such  a  principle,  it  is  unknown  to  us; 
and  it  is  certainly  incumbent  on  those  who 
approve  of  such  an  arrangement,  to  pro- 
duce from  the  Scriptures,  if  they  can,  their 
warrant  for  maintaining  that  a  Christian  king 
has  a  right  to  exercise  supremacy  over  the 
Church  in  spiritual  matters.  Till  this  is 
done  we  must  be  excused  for  believing  that 
no  temporal  prince  has  a  right  to  act  as  a  lord 
over  the  heritage  of  God. 

Nor  was  supreme  spiritual  power  lodged  in 
the  hands  of  any  office-bearer  of  the  church, 
however  distinguished  by  his  gilts,  his  suffer- 
ings or  his  abundant  labors.  The  private 
members,  indeed,  had  it  in  command  to  obey 
the  rulers  or  elders  of  the  church,  but  the 
elders,  on  their  part,  were  enjoined  not  to  act 
as  lords  over  God's  heritage,  but  to  be  ex- 
am  pies  to  the  flock.  1  Pet.  v.  3.  Even  the 
apostles  did  not  claim  to  have  dominion  over 
the  people's  faith,  but  only  to  be  helpers  of 


88      WHICH   IS   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH? 

their  joy.  2  Cor.  i.  24.  And  among  these 
apostles  it  does  not  appear  that  pre-eminence 
was  vested  in  any.  Peter  is  the  only  one  for 
whom,  in  later  times,  official  supremacy  is 
ever  claimed,  but  he  never  claimed  it  for 
himself;  he  always  acted  with  his  fellow- 
apostles  as  a  simple  preacher  of  the  cross  of 
Christ ;  he  is  never  presented  in  the  Scrip- 
tures as  nominating  to  ecclesiastical  office,  or 
as  exercising  any  peculiar  control  over  the 
inferior  officers  in  the  church.  On  one  noted 
occasion,  when  he  exhibited  some  tergiversa- 
tion, we  are  told  of  another  apostle  who  with- 
stood him  to  the  face,  because  he  was  to  be 
blamed.  Gal.  ii.  11.  The  Scripture,  there- 
fore, furnishes  no  ground  whatever  for  believ- 
ing that  supreme  spiritual  power  is  deposited 
in  any  ecclesiastical  officer  any  more  than  in 
any  temporal  prince. 

The  Scriptures  are  to  be  our  guide  on  this 
as  well  as  all  other  religious  matters.  We 
tirm  to  the  following  passages,  and  find  where 
the  source  of  all  spiritual  power  exists: 

Eph.  i.  20-23:  "Which  he  [God]  wrought 
in  Christ,  when  he  raised  him  from  the  dead, 


APOSTOLIC   PRINCIPLES.  89 

and  set  him  at  his  own  right  hand  in  the 
heavenly  places,  far  above  all  principality  and 
power,  and  might  and  dominion,  and  every 
name  that  is  named,  not  only  in  this  world, 
but  also  in  that  which  is  to  come,  and  hath 
put  all  things  under  his  feet,  and  gave  him  to 
be  head  over  all  things  to  the  Church,  which  is 
his  body,  the  fullness  of  him  that  filleth  all 
in  all." 

Eph.  v.  23 :  "  For  the  husband  is  the  head 
of  the  wife,  even  as  Christ  is  the  head  of  the 
Church;  and  he  is  the  Saviour  of  the  body." 

Col.  i.  18:  "And  he  [Christ]  is  the  head  of 
the  body,  the  Church;  who  is  the  beginning, 
the  first-born  from  the  dead;  that  in  all 
things  he  might  have  the  pre-eminence." 

The  passages  now  quoted  are  taken  from  the 
Holy  Scriptures— the  only  rule  of  Christian 
faith  and  practice.  We  have  given  them  our 
attentive  consideration, and  they  have  led  us  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  sole  headship  of  Christ 
over  the  Church  was  the  doctrine  of  apostolic 
days.  What  the  head  is  to  the  human  body 
Christ  is  to  the  Church ;  and  as  the  body  can- 
not have  two  heads,  so  the  Church  cannot  have 


90       WHICH  IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

two  heads — neither  Christ  and  the  pope,  nor 
Christ  and  the  monarch.  To  ns  there  seems 
no  middle  way  in  this  matter.  We  must 
either  reject  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  or 
believe  what  it  teaches — namely,  that  Christ 
is  head  over  all  things  to  the  Church.  We 
choose  the  latter.  The  Headship  of  Christ 
is  the  sixth  principle  of  government, that  we 
find  in  operation  in  apostolic  days.  Let  us 
observe  the  consequence  of  this  principle ;  for, 
as  Christ  is  the  head  of  the  Church,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  are  to  be  subject  to  him; 
and,  as  we  have  no  other  way  of  ascertaining 
the  mind  of  Christ  except  through  the  Scrip- 
tures, it  follows  that  the  affairs  of  the  Church 
are  to  be  managed  by  those  officers  whom  the 
Lord  Jesus  has  entrusted  with  that  power, 
and  are,  without  the  interference  of  any  exter- 
nal authority,  to  be  regulated  according  to  the 
mind  of  God  as  expressed  in  his  word. 


APPLICATION  OF  THE  TEST. 

LET  the  reader  seriously  consider  the  evi- 
dence submitted  in  the  previous  chapter, 
and  we  think  he  will  be  satisfied  that  there 
is  divine  authority  for  saying  that  the  princi- 
ples of  which  the  following  facts  are  the 
realization  were  in  practical  operation  in  the 
apostolic  Church : 

1.  The  office-bearers  were  chosen  by  the 
people. 

2.  The  office  of  bishop  was  identical  with 
that  of  elder. 

3.  There  was  a  plurality  of  elders  in  each 
church. 

4.  Ordination  was  the  act  of  a  presbytery 
— that  is,  of  a  plurality  of  elders. 

5.  There  was  the  privilege  of  appeal  to 
the  assembly  of  elders;  and  the  power  of 
government  was  exercised  by  them  in  their 
associate  capacity. 

6.  The  only  Head  of  the  Church  was  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

91 


92      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

The  principles  embodied  in  these  six  facts 
cover  the  whole  platform  of  church  govern- 
ment, each  rising  in  importance  above  that 
which  precedes  it,  in  an  ascending  series,  from 
popular  election  up  to  the  headship  of  the 
Lord.  We  have  been  conducted  to  them,  not 
by  any  process  of  wire-drawn  logic,  but  by 
receiving  the  Scriptures,  as  we  think  every 
child  of  God  should  receive  them,  except 
there  be  manifest  and  good  reasons  to  the 
contrary,  in  the  plain,  simple  and  natural 
sense.  The  most  unlettered  reader,  if  he  be 
only  unprejudiced  and  honest,  cannot  examine 
the  passages  of  Scripture  we  have  specified 
and  fail  to  see  that  these  six  great  principles 
were  all  embodied  in  the  government  of  the 
apostolic  Church.  But  whether  they  are  em- 
bodied in  those  forms  of  ecclesiastical  gov- 
ernment at  present  existing  in  the  world  is 
another  and  a  very  important  question — a 
question  which  it  is  now  our  business  to 
answer.  We  proceed,  therefore,  to  bring  the 
existing  systems  in  succession  to  the  test  of 
the  apostolic  standard. 


APPLICATION    OF   THE   TEST.  93 

PKELACY. 

As  already  explained,  prelacy  is  that  system 
of  church  government  which  is  dispensed  by 
archbishops,  bishops,  priests,  deans,  deacons 
and  other  office-bearers.*  It  is  exemplified  in 
the  Church  of  Rome  and  in  the  Church  of 
England,  both  of  which  are  prelatic  in  their 
government,  the  difference  being  that  the 
prelacy  of  Rome  vests  the  ecclesiastical  su- 
premacy in  the  pope,  while  the  prelacy  of 
England  vests  it  in  the  reigning  monarch. 
With  this  exception,  the  two  Churches,  how- 
ever widely  they  may  differ  in  doctrine,  are 
in  every  important  point  of  government  the 
same.  As  many  may  be  disposed  to  consider 
the  prelacy  of  the  Protestant  Church  much  less 
objectionable  than  the  prelacy  of  Rome,  and 
as  we  have  neither  necessity  nor  desire  to 
take  any  unfair  advantage  in  argument,  we 
prefer  to  bring  the  prelacy  of  Protestantism 
into  comparison  with  the  apostolic  standard. 

The  fountain  of  jurisdiction  in  the  Church 
of  England  is  the  monarch  for  the  time  being, 
who  inherits  the  throne  by  hereditary  descent, 
*  See  note  on  page  11. 


94      WHICH   IS   THE    APOSTOLIC    CHURCH  ? 

and  who,  irrespective  of  all  character,  is,  by  act 
of  Parliament,  the  only  supreme  head  of  the 
Church  of  England  and  Ireland.  [37  Henry 
VIII.,  chap.  17.]  No  person  can  be  received 
into  the  ministry  of  that  Church  till  he  sub- 
scribe this  article:  "That  the  king's  majesty, 
under  God,  is  the  only  supreme  governor  of  this 
realm,  and  of  all  other  his  highness'  dominions 
and  countries,  as  well  in  all  spiritual  or  eccle- 
siastical things  or  causes  as  temporal."  [Canon 
36.]  The  appointment  of  all  the  archbish- 
ops and  bishops  is  vested  in  the  crown,  which 
is  guided  in  the  selection  by  the  political  ad- 
ministration of  the  day — a  body  composed  of 
every  hue  of  religious  profession,  and  only 
kept  in  its  place  by  the  majority  of  votes  it 
can  command  in  Parliament.  The  highest 
ecclesiastical  office-bearers  under  the  crown 
are  the  archbishops,  of  whom  there  are  two 
in  England — the  archbishops  of  Canterbury 
and  York — and  two  in  Ireland — the  arch- 
bishops of  Armagh  and  Dublin.*  Each  of 
these  has  under  him   a  number  of  suffragan 

*  Since  the  publication  of  this  book,  the  Irish  Epis- 
copal Church  has  been  disestablished.  P. 


APPLICATION    OF   THE   TEST.  95 

bishops,  and  each  bishop  lias  under  his  care 
the  inferior  clergy  of  his  diocese,  who  preach 
and  dispense  the  ordinances  of  religion  to  such 
inhabitants  of  their  parish  as  are  pleased  to 
receive  them.  The  parish  clergy  are  in  some 
instances  appointed  by  the  crown,  in  others 
by  the  bishop,  in  others  by  a  lay  patron,  and 
sometimes  in  a  mode  still  more  objectionable. 

Such  is  prelacy  as  presented  in  the  Protest- 
ant Establishment  of  England.  Let  us  com- 
pare it  with  the  system  of  government  which 
we  have  already  ascertained  to  exist  in  the 
apostolic  Church. 

In  the  apostolic  Church  the  office-bearers 
were  chosen  by  the  people,  but  in  the  Church 
of  England  archbishops  are  chosen  by  the 
crown,  and  the  subordinate  clergy  are  ap- 
pointed to  their  charges  either  by  the  diocesan 
or  by  some  landed  proprietor,  or  by  some 
civil  corporation.  The  people  of  the  apostolic 
Church  exercised  the  privilege  of  electing  an 
apostle ;  the  people  in  the  Church  of  England 
have  not  power  to  elect  a  curate. 

In  the  apostolic  Church  the  office  of  bishop 
and  elder  was  identical ;  the  elders  of  Ephe- 


96       WHICH    IS    THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

sus  were  the  bishops  of  the  flock ;  but  in  the 
English  Church  Establishment  it  is  very  dif- 
ferent. The  apostolic  elder,  being  a  teacher 
and  ruler  of  a  congregation,  resembles  more 
closely  the  parish  clergyman  than  any  other 
office-bearer  in  the  Church  of  England.  But 
it  is  very  evident  that  in  that  church  a  parish 
clergyman  holds  a  position  widely  different 
from  a  bishop.  The  rector  wields  the  juris- 
diction of  a  parish,  but  the  bishop  governs  a 
diocese,  that  usually  includes  a  whole  multi- 
tude of  parishes.  The  one  presides  over  a 
single  congregation,  the  other  over  many  con- 
gregations. The  one  exercises  authority  over 
the  laity,  but  a  Church  of  England  bishop  is 
the  ruler  of  a  band  of  clergy.  If,  then,  the 
parish  clergyman  correspond  to  the  presbyter 
or  elder  of  apostolic  times,  it  is  very  clear 
that  in  the  Establishment  the  bishop  and 
elder  are  not  identical  in  office.  In  the  Es- 
tablished Church  every  elder  is  subject  to  his 
bishop,  but  in  the  apostolic  Church  every 
elder  was  a  bishop  himself. 

In  the  Church  of  England  each  congrega- 
tion is  under  the  care  of  one  presbyter.  When 


APPLICATION   OF   THE   TEST.  97 

a  second  is  called  in,  he  is  a  mere  curate  in 
the  employment  of  another,  and  void  of  all 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  It  is  not  very  com- 
mon, and  certainly  not  essential  to  the  system, 
to  have  more  than  one  presbyter  or  elder  in 
one  church  ;  whereas  we  have  seen  that  in 
each  church  in  apostolic  times  there  was  a 
plurality  of  elders. 

In  the  Church  of  England  ordination  is  an 
act  exclusively  performed  by  a  prelate;  he 
may  ask  others  to  unite  with  him,  but  it  is 
his  presence,  not  theirs,  that  is  essential  to  the 
act;  whereas  in  the  apostolic  Church  it  was 
the  practice  to  ordain  men  to  the  office  of  the 
ministry  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
the  presbytery. 

In  the  Church  of  England,  no  matter  what 
ecclesiastical  grievance  may  exist,  there  is  no 
power  of  appeal  except  to  the  courts  of  law, 
or  the  queen's  privy  council,  or  some  such 
tribunal.  The  practice  is  unknown  in  the  de- 
nomination of  bringing  any  matter  for  con- 
sideration before  the  assembly  of  elders  for 
them  to  decide  upon  in  accordance  with  the 
apostles'  word.     But  this,  as  we  have  seen, 

9 


98      WHICH   IS    THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

was  the  mode  in  which  affairs  were  managed 
in  the  apostolic  Church. 

In  our  Protestant  Establishment  the  mon- 
arch is,  by  act  of  Parliament,  head  of  the 
Church,  and  to  the  king  or  queen,  as  the  case 
may  be,  the  37th  Article  informs  us  that  "the 
chief  government  of  all  estates  of  the  realm, 
whether  they  be  ecclesiastical  or  civil,  in  all 
causes,  doth  appertain;"  whereas  in  apostolic 
times  the  Church  had  no  head  but  Jesus 
Christ.* 

We  have  thus  examined  and  compared  the 

*  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  exhibits  some  modifications  in  the  particulars 
specified  in  the  text.  Each  congregation  chooses  its  ves- 
trymen and  wardens,  and  these  officers  elect  the  rector  of 
the  church.  The  annual  and  general  conventions  have 
a  power  of  legislation  in  reference  to  the  affairs  of  the 
sect  at  large.  It  has  not  yet  any  archbishops,  nor  in  the 
dioceses  generally  deans  or  archdeacons,  though  in 
Illinois,  we  believe,  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  de- 
velop these  officers.  In  other  respects  the  statements 
of  the  text  will  apply  to  the  denomination  in  this  country 
as  well  as  to  the  English  Establishment.  Though  its  alle- 
giance to  the  head  of  the  Anglican  Church  has  been  dis- 
solved, it  retains  the  peculiarities  by  which  that  Church 
is  distinguished  from  all  other  Protestant  denominations, 
and  it  looks  up  to  it  as  its  mother  Church.  P. 


APPLICATION   OF   THE   TEST.  99 

two  Churches  as  closely  and  candidly  as  it  is 
possible  for  us  to  do,  and  we  feel  ourselves 
forced  to  the  conclusion  that,  of  the  six  great 
principles  of  ecclesiastical  government  that 
met  in  the  apostolic  Church,  there  is  not  one 
embodied  in  the  prelacy  of  the  Church  of 
England.  We  infer,  therefore,  that,  while  that 
Church  may  be  entitled  to  great  respect  as  a 
human  system,  maintained  by  act  of  Parlia- 
ment, and  numbering  in  its  ranks  many  es- 
timable people,  there  is  no  ground  whatever 
for  regarding  it,  in  point  of  government,  as 
an  apostolic  Church.  At  the  peril  of  excom- 
munication, we  feel  bound  to  declare  our  con- 
viction that  the  government  of  the  Church  of 
England  is  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God.* 

*  No.  VII.  of  the  Constitutions  and  Canons  Ecclesiasti- 
cal, agreed  upon  with  the  king's  license  in  1603,  and  re- 
published by  the  Prayer-Book  and  Homily  Society 
(1852),  is  as  follows:  "Whosoever  shall  hereafter  affirm 
that  the  government  of  the  Church  of  England  under 
his  Majesty  by  archbishops,  bishops,  deans,  archdeacons 
and  the  rest  that  bear  office  in  the  same  is  anti-Christian 
or  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God,  let  him  be  excom- 
municated ipso  facto,  and  so  continue  till  he  repent  and 
publicly  revoke  such  his  wicked  errors." 


100      WHICH    IS   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH? 

INDEPENDENCY  AND  CONGKEGATION- 
ALISM. 

It  is  difficult  to  ascertain  the  particulars  of 
ecclesiastical  order  approved  by  Independents, 
inasmuch  as  we  are  not  aware  that  they  have 
embodied  their  views  of  what  the  Scriptures 
teach  on  the  subject  in  any  common  formula, 
and  as  every  congregation,  standing  apart 
from  every  other,  may  differ  sometimes  widely 
on  important  points.  We  are,  therefore,  left 
to  discover  their  views  of  church  polity  from 
the  general  practices  known  to  exist  among 
them,  and  from  the  principles  advocated  by 
their  most  eminent  writers.  These,  however, 
are  sufficiently  known  to  enable  us  to  compare 
the  Independent  system  of  church  govern- 
ment with  the  apostolic  standard. 

The  principle  of  popular  election  existed, 
as  we  have  seen,  in  the  primitive  Church,  and 
had  the  sanction  of  the  apostles  of  the  Lord. 
Among  the  Independents  this  principle  is 
preserved  in  its  integrity;  with  them  every 
ecclesiastical  office-bearer  is  chosen  by  the 
people. 

In  the  apostolic  Church  the  office  of  bishop 


APPLICATION    OF   THE   TEST.  101 

and  elder  was  identical ;  the  bishop  did  not 
exercise  any  authority  over  the  elder;  on  the 
contrary,  every  bishop  was  an  elder,  and  every 
elder  a  bishop.  So  it  is  with  Independents. 
Every  one  of  their  pastors  fills  the  office  of 
bishop  and  elder,  and  none  of  them  claims 
authority  over  others.  With  them  a  bishop 
and  elder  are  only  different  names  for  the 
same  office-bearers,  as  it  was  in  apostolic 
days. 

Ve  have  seen  how,  in  apostolic  times,  there 
was  a  plurality  of  elders  in  each  church. 
Here  the  Independent  system  fails.  On  the 
principles  of  that  theory  of  church  govern- 
ment, it  is  scarcely  possible  to  have  a  plurality 
of  elders,  and  in  practice  it  rarely,  if  ever, 
occurs.  Among  them  there  is  only  one  minis- 
ter, or  bishop,  or  elder,  in  each  congregation. 
Practically,  their  system  admits  only  of  one 
elder  to  each  church.  If  an  apostle  were 
writing  an  epistle  to  an  Independent  church, 
he  would  never  think  of  addressing  it  to  the 
bishops,  as  well  as  to  the  deacons,  for  the 
simple  reason  that  with  them  there  is  usually 
but  one  bishop  to  one  church ;  nor  could  an 


102      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHUKCH? 

apostle  ever  send  for  the  elders  of  an  Inde- 
pendent church,  as  Paul  sent  for  the  elders 
of  Ephesus,  for  the  plain  reason  that  in  an 
Independent  church  there  is  usually  but  one 
elder.  A  single  pastor,  with  deacons  under 
him,  is  the  prominent  feature  that  the  Inde- 
pendent system  everywhere  presents — an  ar- 
rangement than  which  none  can  be  more 
opposed  to  the  plurality  of  elders  that  existed 
in  each  congregation  in  primitive  times.  Some 
Independents  attempt  to  palliate  their  depart- 
ure from  apostolic  precedent  by  saying  that  a 
plurality  of  elders  is  desirable,  but  their 
churches  are  not  able  to  support  them.  Does 
it  never  strike  our  esteemed  brethren  that 
there  must  be  some  remarkable  disparity 
between  the  apostolic  system  and  theirs,  when 
the  richest  of  their  churches  now  cannot 
afford  to  possess  what  was  possessed  by  the 
very  poorest  churches  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles?  It  is  the  word  of  God  that  says  of 
Paul  and  Barnabas,  "They  ordained  elders 
in  every  church." 

The  office-bearers  of  the  apostolic  Church 
were  set  apart  to  the  discharge  of  their  pecu- 


APPLICATION   OF   THE    TEST.  103 

liar  duties  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
the  presbytery.  Among  Independents,  how- 
ever, ordination  of  any  sort  is  not  essential ;  fre- 
quently it  is  counted  unnecessary.  Instances 
are  known  of  persons  acting  as  pastors  of 
churches  for  a  lifetime,  who  were  never  in- 
ducted to  office  with  the  imposition  of  hands 
and  prayer.  Ordination  is  not  required  by 
the  system.  With  them  it  is  a  mere  matter 
of  taste,  left  in  each  case  to  the  individual 
choice.  If  the  newly-elected  pastor  choose  to 
have  himself  ordained,  it  can  only  be  done  in  a 
way  inconsistent  with  Independent  principles. 
The  congregation  being  destitute  of  a  plu- 
rality of  elders,  his  ordination  can  only  come 
from  the  people,  who  have  no  scriptural  right 
to  confer  it,  or  from  the  neighboring  pastors. 
But  who  does  not  see  that  the  latter  practice 
is  entirely  at  variance  with  the  foundation 
principles  of  Independency,  namely — that  each 
congregation  has  iciihin  itself  complete  ma- 
terials for  government?  So  much  is  this  felt 
to  be  the  case  that,  while  some  ask  the  assist- 
ance of  the  pastors  of  the  district  on  such 
occasions,  those  who  choose  to  carry  out  their 


104      WHICH   IS   THE    APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

Congregationalist  principle  with  a  little  more 
consistency  make  light  of  ordination,  think  it 
unnecessary  and  prefer  to  go  without  it.* 

*  The  Congregationalism  of  the  United  States  is  found- 
ed on  these  principles.  It  invests  all  ecclesiastical 
power  (under  Christ)  in  the  membership  of  each  local 
church  as  an  independent  body.  It  recognizes,  however, 
a  fellowship  between  these  independent  churches  which 
invests  each  with  the  right  and  duty  of  advice.  In  that 
respect  it  differs  from  Independency,  which  ignores  any 
check  even  of  advice  upon  the  action  of  particular  con- 
gregations. Ordination  is  not  essential  in  Congregation- 
alism. It  is  held  that  there  is  no  command  for  its  con- 
tinuance, though  it  has  a  pleasant  fitness  which  keeps 
up  the  practice  of  it.  When  performed,  it  is  nothing  but 
the  solemn  installation  of  a  functionary,  previously  ap- 
pointed, in  the  place  to  which  he  has  been  chosen — the 
consummation  of  the  act  of  election,  and  it  means  pre- 
cisely the  same,  whether  applied  to  pastor,  deacons, 
clerk,  treasurer  or  committees.  Each  congregation  has 
in  itself  the  power  to  ordain,  but  it  is  a  matter  of  comity 
to  invite  neighboring  churches,  by  their  representatives, 
pastoral  and  lay,  to  pronounce  the  benediction  upon  the 
consummation  of  the  pastoral  union.  The  pastor  of  a 
particular  congregation,  as  well  as  its  deacons,  clerk  and 
treasurer,  should  be  selected  from  its  own  membership. 
When  a  man  ceases  to  be  the  pastor  of  a  church,  he  falls 
back  to  the  position  of  a  private  member  in  it.  If  lie 
takes  his  membership  to  another  congregation,  and  is 
elected  pastor  there,  he  must  be  again  ordained,  though  all 


APPLICATION   OF   THE   TEST.  105 

In  the  apostolic  Church  there  was  the  priv- 
ilege of  appeal  to  the  assembly  of  elders. 
Among  the  Independents  nothing  of  this 
kind  can  exist.  The  distinctive  principle  of 
their  system  precludes  all  appeal.  The  de- 
cision of  the  pastor  and  deacons  and  people, 
assembled  in  a  church-meeting,  is  final  in 
every  case.  No  matter  how  partial  or  unjust 
their  decision  is  felt  to  be,  there  is  no  power 
of  bringing  the  sentence  under  review  of  a 
less  prejudiced  and  more  enlightened  tribunal. 
The  judgment  of  the  Church  may  be  in  strict 
accordance  with  justice,  or  it  may  be  the  off- 
spring of  prejudice  or  malevolence  in  a  few  of 
the  leaders  of  the  meeting,  masked,  of  course, 
under  zeal  for  purity  of  communion  and  for 
the  cause  of  religion;  but  no  matter  how 
superficial  the  investigation  or  how  deep  the 
wrong,  the  system  deprives  the  injured  man 

ordinations  after  the  first  are  usually  styled  installations. 
(See  Dexter's  "Congregationalism;"  especially  pp.  1,  2, 
and  136-146.)  These  statements  show  that  what  is  said 
in  the  text  in  reference  to  ordination  among  English 
Independents  applies  substantially  to  the  Congregational 
theory  of  this  country.  The  other  features  of  Independ- 
ency as  described  above  also  belong  to  it.  P. 


106      WHICH    IS    THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

of  the  privilege  of  appeal,  and  clothes  the 
perpetrators  with  irresponsible  power.  By- 
denying  and  repudiating  all  association,  it 
enables  the  rulers  to  be,  if  they  please,  the 
tyrants  of  the  Church,  and  strips  the  injured 
of  the  possibility  of  redress.  "  Independency/' 
says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  is  the  competency  of  every 
distinct  Church  to  manage,  without  appeal,  its 
own  affairs."*  This  is  an  ingenious  mode  of 
disguising  the  most  repulsive  feature  of  the 
system.  Very  few  would  deny  that  a  church 
is  competent  to  manage  its  own  affairs  in  such 
a  way  as  to  obviate  the  necessity  of  appeal; 
but  what  we  assert  is  that  when  the  Church 
lacks  the  necessary  wisdom  and  discretion  to 
do  so,  appeal  among  Independents  is  not  per- 
mitted, the  injured  is  deprived  of  redress,  and 
power,  for  which  the  possessor  is  irresponsible 
to  man,  degenerates  into  tyranny  when  it  is 
unwisely  exercised,  and  there  is  nothing  to 
keep  it  in  check.  The  case  of  Antioch  shows 
that  when  a  difference  arose  in  the  primitive 
Church,  there  was  a   right   of  referring  the 

*  Dr.  Wardlaw's  "  Congregational  Independency  ;"  p. 
232,  Glasgow,  1848. 


APPLICATION   OF   THE   TEST.  107 

matter  to  the  assembly  of  elders,  who,  under 
the  guidance  of  the  apostles,  settled  the  busi- 
ness. Elders  might  still  meet,  and  the  written 
word  of  the  apostles  is  accessible  to  all,  and  a 
decision  pronounced  by  parties  removed  from 
the  scene  of  controversy,  untainted  by  local 
prejudices,  and  standing  far  away  from  the 
partisanship  of  the  leaders,  might  go  far  now, 
as  in  ancient  days,  to  calm  dissensions,  should 
they  unfortunately  arise.  But  Independents, 
in  this  respect,  repudiate  the  apostolic  exam- 
ple. Their  principle  is  to  refuse  all  recogni- 
tion of  external  authority,  to  make  the  de- 
cision of  the  church-meeting  final  in  every 
case,  and  to  deny  to  them  who  are  aggrieved 
the  privilege  of  appeal.* 

*  The  Baptists  are  independent  or  congregational  in 
their  form  of  government.  Dr.  Wayland,  in  his  "  Notes 
on  the  Principles  and  Practices  of  the  Baptist  Churches/' 
says  (p.  177) :  "The  Baptists  have  ever  believed  in  the 
entire  and  absolute  independency  of  the  churches.  By 
this  we  mean  that  every  church  of  Christ — that  is,  every 
company  of  believers  united  together  according  to  the 
laws  of  Christ — is  perfectly  capable  of  self-government, 
and  that,  therefore,  no  one  acknowledges  any  higher 
authority  under  Christ  than  itself;  that  with  the  church 
all  ecclesiastical  action  commences,  and  with  it  termi- 


108       WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

The  Headship  of  Christ  was  a  principle  of 
apostolic  times.  Independents,  we  are  happy 
to  say,  acknowledge  this  principle  in  all  its 
integrity. 

The  result  of  our  comparison  is,  that  there 
are  three  principles  of  the  apostolic  Church 
that  we  find  fully  acknowledged  and  acted  upon 
among  our  Independent  brethren — namely, 
popular  election,  the  identity  of  presbyter 
and  bishop,  and  the  Headship  of  Christ  over 
the    Church.    But  there    are  three    apostolic 

nates;  and  hence,  that  the  ecclesiastical  relations  proper 
of  every  member  are  limited  to  the  church  to  which  he 
belongs."  In  striking  inconsistency  with  this,  however, 
as  to  ordination,  which  is  certainly  a  very  important 
part  of  the  "self-government"  of  each  Church,  Dr. 
Wayland  says  (p.  114) :  "A  single  church  does  not  or- 
dain. It  calls  a  council,  generally  representing  the 
churches  in  the  vicinity,  who  are  present  by  their 
ministers  and  such  private  brethren  as  they  may  select." 
The  associations  and  councils  of  the  Baptists  and  Congre- 
gationalists  are  practical  departures  from  the  fundamental 
principle  of  their  form  of  government,  and  a  half-way 
adoption,  for  general  church  work,  of  some  of  the 
features  of  Presbyterianism.  No  appeal,  however,  lies 
to  the  associations  from  individual  churches,  nor  have 
they,  in  reference  to  particular  church  questions,  the 
right  to  do  anything  more  than  advise.  P.    , 


APPLICATION   OF   THE   TEST.  109 

principles  that  we  fail  to  find  in  their  system — 
namely,  the  plurality  of  elders  in  each  church, 
ordination  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  the  presbytery,  and  the  privilege  of  appeal. 
We  conclude,  therefore,  that,  while  the  Inde- 
pendent system  of  government  advances  to 
the  pattern  of  primitive  times  much  more 
closely  than  that  which  exists  in  the  churches 
of  England  and  Rome,  still,  it  is  not  the  sys- 
tem entitled  to  plead  the  precedent  of  the 
apostolic  Church. 


PRESBYTEKY. 

It  only  now  remains  that  we  compare  the 
Presbyterian  system  with  the  standard  of  the 
law  and  of  the  testimony.  The  term  Presby- 
terian is  derived  from  the  word  presbytery,  be- 
cause the  leading  characteristic  of  this  form  of 
church  government  is,  that  it  entrusts  the 
duty  of  ruling  the  Church  to  the  presbytery 
— that  is,  to  the  presbyters  or  elders  of  the 
Church  in  their  assembled  capacity.  But  let 
us  bring  it,  as  well  as  the  others,  to  the  scrip- 
tural standard. 
10 


110       WHICH    IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

In  the  apostolic  Church  we  have  mentioned 
^frequently  already  that  popular  election  was 
an  admitted  principle.  It  is  so  with  Pres- 
byterians. In  all  Presbyterian  churches 
throughout  Britain  and  America,  with  the 
single  exception  of  the  Established  Church 
of  Scotland,  the  members  of  each  congrega- 
tion invariably  elect  their  own  office-bearers. 
The  privilege  has  been  abused  sometimes,  as 
what  good  thing  has  not  been  abused  by  the 
sin  and  infatuation  of  man?  But  it  is  a 
scriptural  privilege  that  the  apostolic  Church 
bequeaths  us,  and  Presbyterians  have  often 
shown  that  they  count  it  more  precious  than 
gold. 

In  the  primitive  age  the  office  of  bishop 
and  elder  was  identical.  An  elder  was  not 
inferior,  in  point  of  official  standing,  to  a 
bishop,  nor  a  bishop  to  an  elder.  It  is  so  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  Every  elder  is  a 
bishop  or  overseer  of  the  flock,  and  every 
bishop  is  an  elder,  one  whose  office  is  to  rule  in 
the  house  of  God.  There  are  two  departments 
in  the  office  of  the  elder — that  of  teaching,  and 
that  of  ruling;  but  the  office  itself  is  one. 


APPLICATION   OF   THE  TEST.  Ill 

There  was  a  plurality  of  elders  or  bishops 
in  each  congregation  of  the  apostolic  Church. 
Such  is  the  practice  in  every  Presbyterian 
church  at  the  present  day.  There  is  in  each 
of  their  congregations  a  number  of  persons 
ordained  to  the  office  of  the  eldership,  one  of 
whom  at  least  gives  himself  to  the  work  of 
the  ministry  in  its  various  departments,  par- 
ticularly that  of  public  instruction,  while  the 
others  give  their  principal  attention  to  ruling 
in  the  Church  of  God.  Teaching  and  ruling, 
as  we  have  already  stated,  are  different  de- 
partments of  the  same  office;  and  while  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  those  appointed  to  the 
office  have,  in  the  abstract,  a  right  to  fill  both 
departments,  yet,  in  practice,  it  is  found  more 
convenient  and  beneficial  for  the  people  that 
each  elder  give  most  of  his  attention  to  that 
department  whose  duties  he  is  best  qualified 
to  discharge.  All  elders,  being  bishops,  would 
have  an  equal  right,  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, to  preach,  baptize,  administer  the  Lord's 
Supper  and  ordain ;  but  these  duties  it  is 
arranged  to  devolve  on  one  of  the  elders, 
called   by   distinction    the    minister,  who   is 


112      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

especially  trained  to  his  work,  and  is,  by 
general  consent,  admitted  to  possess  most  gifts 
and  attainments,  and  who,  in  consequence,  is 
the  best  qualified  to  make  these  ordinances 
edifying  to  the  Church;  while  the  majority  of 
the  elders  only  rule,  visit  the  sick,  superintend 
Sabbath-schools,  conduct  prayer-meetings,  and 
make  themselves  useful  in  other  ways.* 

Presbyterians,  therefore,  maintain  a  plural- 
ity of  elders  in  every  church;  and  as  it  was 
in  apostolic  days,  it  is  customary  among  them, 
for  elders  to  rule  who  do  not  labor  in  word 
and  doctrine.  Any  unprejudiced  person  may 
see,  from  1  Tim.  v.  17,  that  the  office  of  the 
eldership  divided  itself  into  two  great  de- 
partments of  duty  in  primitive  times,  even  as 
at  present.  "Let  the  elders  that  rule  well  be 
counted  worthy  of  double  honor,  especially 
they  who  labor  in  word  and  doctrine."  Dr. 
King's  comment  on  this  text  must,  for  sense 
and  truthfulness,  commend  itself  to  every  in- 
telligent man:  "The  word,"  he  says,  "could 
suggest  to  an  unbiased  reader  only  one 
meaning,  that   all  elders  who  rule  well  are 

*  And  this  distinction  in  practice  is  the  constitutional 
law  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  P. 


APPLICATION   OF   THE   TEST.  113 

worthy  of  abundant  honor,  but  especially 
those  of  their  number  who,  besides  ruling 
well,  also  labor  in  word  and  doctrine.  Of 
course,  the  passage  so  interpreted,  bears  that, 
of  the  elders  who  rule  well,  only  some  labor 
in  word  and  doctrine — that  is,  there  are  ruling 
elders,  and  among  these  teaching  elders,  as 
we  have  at  the  present  day."  * 

We  are  tempted  thus  to  insert  the  true  ex- 
position of  this  celebrated  passage,  of  which 
we  have  been  often  charged  by  our  opponents 
as  giving  interpretations  the  most  grotesque 
and  extravagant.  But  the  reader  is  requested 
to  observe  that  the  point  which  we  have  par- 
ticularly in  view  at  present  is  that  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  like  the  apostolic  Church, 
has  in  every  congregation  a  plurality  of 
elders. 

Office-bearers  were  set  apart  to  their  dis- ' 

tinct  spheres  of  duty  in  the  apostolic  Church 

with    the   laying  on   of    the   hands    of   the 

presbytery.    The  Presbyterian  Church,  in  its 

several  branches,  is  the  only  one  known  to  us 

*  Exposition  and  Defence,  p.  115. 
10* 


114      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

that  carries  this  scriptural  principle  invariably 
into  practice. 

In  the  apostolic  Church  there  was  recog- 
nized the  privilege  of  appeal  and  the  right  of 
government.  This  privilege  is  not  only  ad- 
mitted, but  it  is  one  of  the  most  distinguish- 
ing principles  of  Presbyterianism.  Should  any 
difference  arise  in  a  congregation,  the  mem- 
bers are  competent  to  settle  the  matter  with- 
out appeal,  if  they  please;  but  should  this 
fail,  it  is  equally  competent  for  them  to  refer 
the  whole  matter,  either  for  advice  or  decision, 
to  the  assembly  of  elders  met  in  presbytery. 
The  highest  ecclesiastical  court  known  to  the 
system  is  the  Presbytery,  the  Synod  being  the 
name  usually  given  to  the  presbytery  of  a 
province,  and  the  General  Assembly  being  the 
name  that  convenience  has  attached  to  the 
^presbytery  of  a  nation.  The  General  Assem- 
bly has  jurisdiction  over  a  synod  only  because 
it  is  a  larger  presbytery.* 

*"The  Presbyterian  doctrine  on  this  subject  is  that 
the  Church  is  one  in  such  a  sense  that  a  smaller  part  is 
subject  to  a  larger,  and  the  larger  to  the  whole."  The 
elders  are  the  representatives,  in  the  session,  of  the  peo- 


APPLICATION   OF   THE   TEST.  115 

In  the  apostolic  Church  the  Lord   Jesus 
alone  was  Kiug  and  Head.  This  is  a  truth  ac- 

ple  of  their  particular  Church.  If  all  Christians  could 
be  united  in  one  congregation,  nothing  further  would  be 
necessary.  But  as  they  increase  in  number,  and  extend 
territorially,  they  must  have  separate  organizations  ;  and 
their  unity  can  be  exhibited  and  kept  up  only  by  repre- 
sentation in  those  organizations,  each  lower  fraction 
being  represented  in  the  higher,  and  the  highest  being 
the  bond  of  unity  of  all.  And  as  a  historical  Presby- 
terian fact,  the  highest  representative  body  in  each 
country,  above  the  sessions,  was  first  formed  as  the  unit 
and  representative  of  the  whole  Church,  and  out  of 
itself,  as  the  numerical  and  territorial  necessity  grew  up, 
it  constituted  the  subordinate  organizations.  This  was 
the  case  in  Scotland,  Ireland  and  America.  The  General 
Assembly  is  the  largest  or  General  Presbytery ;  and 
representation  is  an  essential  to  it. 

As  against  independency  or  Congregationalism,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  prelacy  on  the  other,  with  all  the 
mixtures  of  the  two,  the  grand  distinguishing  features 
of  Presbyterianism  are  the  parity  of  its  ministry  and 
representation.  Kepresentation  again  assumes  a  two- 
fold aspect:  1.  In  the  administration  of  the  government 
and  discipline  of  each  particular  church,  not  by  the 
brethren  at  large,  but  by  their  representatives,  elders 
elected  by  them  and  properly  ordained ;  and  2.  The 
representation  of  these  particular  congregations  through 
their  elders,  teaching  and  ruling,  in  an  ascending  grade 
of  church  courts,  the  lower  being  subject  to  the  higher, 


116       WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

knowledged  by  all  Presbyterians,  and  practi- 
cally acted  upon  by  all,  except  a  very  few, 
who,  owing  to  their  connection  with  the  State, 
have  been  charged  with  a  virtual  departure 
from  the  principle.  All  Presbyterian  churches 
rank  among  their  most  cherished,  as  well  as 
distinctive,  principles,  that  Christ  alone  is 
King  and  Head  of  his  Church.  As  a  denomi- 
nation, Presbyterians  have  ever  held  that  the 
Church,  independent  of  the  civil  rulers,  has 
supreme  jurisdiction  in  all  spiritual  matters, 
and  that  its  office-bearers  are  bound  to  exer- 
cise that  jurisdiction  in  conformity  to  the 
mind  of  Christ,  as  expressed  in  his  word. 
The  doctrine  of  the  supreme  Headship  of 
Jesus  Christ  over  his  Church  is  one  to  which 
Presbyterians  have  always  been  warm  in  their 
attachment. 

We  find,  then,  on  minute  and  patient  ex- 
amination, that  the  six  main  principles  of 
government  that  were,  by  inspired  men,  es- 
tablished in  the  apostolic  Church,  are  all 
recognized  and  carried  out  among  Presbyter- 

to  whom  the  government  of  the  Church  in  its  more 
extended  territorial  capacity  is  committed.  P. 


APPLICATION   OF   THE   TEST.  117 

ians.  We  know  no  other  denomination  in  the 
world  of  whose  form  of  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment the  same  statement  could  be  made  with- 
out departure  from  the  truth. 


THE  EESULT. 

Here,  then,  is  the  result  of  our  investiga- 
tions and  comparisons.  The  word  of  God  con- 
tains six  great,  well-defined  principles  of  gov- 
ernment that  were  embodied  in  that  Church 
which  was  planted  and  organized  by  the 
inspired  apostles  of  the  Lord.  All  existing 
modern  Churches  claim  to  be  apostolic,  and, 
with  the  exception  of  the  Greek  and  Roman 
Churches,  profess  to  adopt  the  Scriptures  as 
the  sole  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  But  on 
comparing  the  prelacy  of  the  Church  of 
England  with  the  standard  of  the  divine 
word,  it  is  found  that  in  that  Church  not  one 
of  the  apostolic  principles  of  government  is 
recognized  or  embodied.*  Among  the  inde- 

*  In  reference  to  American  Episcopacy  this  remark 
must  be  modified  according  to  the  statements  on  p.  47. 

P. 


118       WHICH  IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

pendents  three  of  the  apostolic  principles  are 
exemplified  in  practice ;  the  remaining  three 
are  nowhere  to  be  found.  Among  Presbyter- 
ians these  six  principles  are  all  acknowledged, 
and  every  one  of  them  is  a  main  feature  of 
the  Presbyterian  system.  We  now  remind  the 
reader  of  the  axiom  with  which  we  entered 
on  the  investigation:  The  modem  Church 
which  embodies  in  its  government  most  apostolic 
principles  comes  nearest  in  its  government  to 
the  apostolic  Church.  We  apply  this  axiom  to 
the  settlement  of  the  case.  Our  conclusion  is 
that,  while  the  prelacy  of  Rome  and  England 
is  in  direct  opposition  to  the  form  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal government  that  was  sanctioned  by  inspired 
men,  and  while  independency  approaches  much 
more  nearly,  but  still  falls  short  of,  the  primi- 
tive model,  the  Presbyterian  is,  in  point 
of  government,  the  only  apostolic 
Church. 

We  are,  indeed,  very  far  from  maintaining 
that  any  Church  on  earth  is  in  everything  an 
exact  model  of  the  pattern  presented  in  the 
primitive  age.  It  requires  very  little  thought 
to  see  that  the  apostolic  Church  of  the  Scrip- 


APPLICATION   OF   THE   TEST.  119 

tures  is  altogether  unique — one  that  in  all  its 
parts  is  never  to  be  realized  in  this  world 
again.  There  were  in  it  apostles,  prophets  and 
apostolic  delegates,  all  vested  with  extraordi- 
nary powers  which  have  been  handed  down 
to  no  successors.  It  was  quite  common  for  the 
early  preachers  to  work  miracles  in  confirma- 
tion of  their  doctrine,  and  confer  the  Holy 
Ghost  by  the  laying  on  of  their  hands.  Some- 
times in  the  same  congregation  there  were 
several  gifted  brethren  who  could  look  into 
the  future  with  prophetic  eye  and  declare  in- 
fallibly the  mind  of  God.  There  were  no 
public  buildings  erected  for  the  celebration  of 
Christian  worship  during  all  the  apostolic 
age;  and  public  teachers,  instead  of  confining 
the  labors  of  a  life  to  one  little  district  in  the 
country,  went  everywhere  preaching  the  word. 
These  are  matters  as  to  which  no  sect  that  we 
know  of  has  been  able  yet  to  copy  the  apos- 
tolic Church,  or  is  ever  very  likely  to  do  so. 

It  is  not  uncommon  to  hear  people  speak 
of  the  advantages  that  accrue  to  the  Presby- 
terian system  from  the  admittance  of  the  lay 
element  into  the  church  courts.    This  must 


120       WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC   CHURCH? 

be  a  misunderstanding  altogether.  None  but 
elders — teaching  and  ruling  elders — are  com- 
petent to  sit  in  any  Presbyterian  church  court, 
from  the  session  of  a  congregation  up  to  the 
General  Assembly;  and  as  we  have  already  : 
seen,  all  elders  are  equal  in  point  of  official 
standing,  for  though  their  departments  of 
duty  are  in  some  respects  different,  yet  the 
office  is  one  and  the  same.  No  elder  of  any 
kind  is  a  layman,  but  an  ecclesiastical  office- 
bearer, ordained  with  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  presbytery,  and  appointed  to  the 
oversight  of  the  flock  and  to  the  discharge  of 
spiritual  duties.  The  notion  is  only  plausible 
from  the  fact  that  most  elders  are  engaged  in 
secular  pursuits.  But  it  should  be  remembered 
that  all  ministers  were  so  engaged  at  the  first. 
Even  an  apostle  lived  by  his  trade,  as  he 
repeatedly  informs  us  (Acts  xx.  34;  xviii.  3; 
1  Cor.  iv.  12;  1  Thess.  ii.  9;  2  Thess.  iii.  8); 
and  it  was  part  of  Paul's  charge  to  the 
bishops  of  Ephesus,  "that  so  laboring  they 
ought  to  support  the  weak."  Acts  xx.  35.  If 
the  pursuit  of  secular  employment  proves  our 
elders   to   be   laymen,  then  the   bishops   of 


APPLICATION   OF   THE   TEST.  121 

Ephesus  were  laymen,  and  the  apostle  of  the 
Gentiles  was  a  layman  too. 

It  is,  however,  only  candid  to  say  that  such 
a  notion  of  ecclesiastical  order  as  this  term 
betrays  has  received  countenance  from  the 
disparity  that  in  the  course  of  time  has  risen 
between  the  elders  who  teach  and  the  elders 
who  rule.  This  disparity  is  not  the  result  of 
any  ecclesiastical  enactment,  but  was  at  the 
beginning,  and  still  is,  the  effect  mainly  of  a 
difference  of  gifts.  The  most  gifted  of  the 
elders  was  in  the  beginning  set  to  preach,  and 
what  at  first  was  only  a  difference  of  gifts  has 
grown  in  the  progress  of  time  to  wear  the  ap- 
pearance of  a  difference  in  rank.  One  is  here 
reminded  of  the  truthful  remark  of  Dr.  Camp- 
bell :  "  Power  has  a  sort  of  attractive  force 
which  gives  it  a  tendency  to  accumulate,  inso- 
much that  what  in  the  beginning  is  a  distinc- 
tion barely  perceptible  grows  in  process  of 
time  a  most  remarkable  disparity." 

The  disparity  existing  between  teaching  and 

ruling  elders  among  Presbyterians,  instead  of 

being  defended,  is  very  much  to  be  lamented, 

and  ought  as  much  as  possible  to  be  removed. 

11 


122      WHICH   IS   THE   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH? 

This  is  to  be  done,  however,  not  by  lowering 
the  teaching  elder,  but  by  elevating  the 
ruling  elder,  and  appointing  to  office  those 
only  who  are  distinguished  from  the  people 
by  more  than  a  common  measure  of  graces 
and  gifts,  who  are  aware  of  the  responsibili- 
ties of  the  eldership,  and  who  are  determined, 
for  the  Lord's  sake,  to  the  best  of  their  ability 
to  discharge  its  duties.  Besides,  the  office  of 
the  deacon,  existing  at  present  only  in  some 
congregations,  should  be  revived  in  every 
church  where  elders  can  manage  temporal 
matters  only  by  neglecting  the  spiritual  con- 
cerns peculiarly  their  own.  These  and  other 
defects  can  be  remedied  when  once  they  are 
seen  to  be  defects,  for  it  is  one  among  the 
many  recommendations  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  polity  that  it  possesses  within  itself 
a  purifying  and  reforming  power  by  which, 
while  always  preserving  the  scriptural  and 
essential  principles  of  the  system,  it  can  alter 
any  arrangement  that  experience  has  proved 
in  its  operation  not  to  be  productive  of  good. 
We  do  not,  then,  assert  that  the  Presbyter- 
ian Church  is  in  everything  an  exact  copy  of 


APPLICATION   OF   THE   TEST.  123 

the  apostolic  Church.  There  are  some  things 
found  in  the  one  that  must  be  for  ever  want- 
ing in  the  other;  and,  conversely,  there  are 
some  things  wanting  in  the  one  that  are  found 
in  the  other.  But  in  doctrine  they  are  exactly 
the  same;  in  worship  they  are  exactly  the 
same;  in  government  all  the  main  principles 
of  the  one  are  found  in  the  other.  There  is 
no  other  Church  on  earth  of  which  the  same 
statements  can  be  made  in  truth.  We  regard 
it,  therefore,  as  put  beyond  all  reasonable 
doubt  that  of  all  the  Churches  now  existing 
in  the  world,  the  Presbyterian  Church  comes 
nearest  to  the  model  of  apostolic  times.  That 
such  is  the  fact  every  man  who  gives  to  the 
evidence  here  submitted  that  careful  and  un- 
prejudiced consideration  to  which  it  is  en- 
titled must,  as  we  think,  be  convinced. 


Jc 


